JASWANT RAI AND OTHERS Vs. SHRIMATI KANWAL RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 561 -A of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Jaswant Rai and six other Petitioners for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh under Section 406, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 25th August, 1962 Kamal Kumari Jain filed a complaint under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, against the seven Petitioners on the allegations that she was married to Karnal Kant Petitioner No. 2, on 18th April, 1961 at her parents' residence at 4, Hailey Road, New Delhi, Jaswant Rai Petitioner No. 1 is the elder brother of Karnal Kant and Uma Rani Petitioner No. 6 is the wife of Jaswant Rai. Daya Wanti Petitioner No 7 is the mother of Karnal Kant and Jawahar Lal Petitioner No. 3 is the younger brother of Karnal Kant. Subhash Wati and Nakshtra Devi Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 are the younger sisters of Karnal Kant and are unmarried. It is stated that at the time of the marriage, the parents and relatives of Kamal Kumari gave gifts worth Rs. 42,000/ -, A number of ornaments and clothes were also given to Karnal Kumari, as stridhan by her husband's relatives. Those articles were handed over to Karnal Kant, Jaswant Rai, Uma Rani, Jawahar Lal, Subash Wati and Nakshtra Devi by the parents of Kamal Kumari at the vide ceremony for being handed over to Kamal Kumari at her husband's house at Chandigarh or Ludhiana. Immediately after her arrival at her husband's house. Kamal Kumari was subjected to harsh treatment by her husband and his relatives on the ground that the dowry brought by her was not enough. Kamal Kumari then wrote to her parents about her ill -treatment. The news otherwise also trickled out to her parents, where -upon Kamal Kumari's father Kanshi Ram Jain accompanied by Sagar Chand came came to Chandigarh on 5th July, 1961. Kamal Kumari was then turned out by her husband and his relatives from the house and her demand for the return of her valuables was turned down contemptuously. It is further stated that the valuable articles and ornaments which were entrusted to Petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 at the time of the marriage were handed over on arrival at Chandigarh by those Petitioners to Daya Wanti Petitioner No. 7 who refused to part with those articles in spite of the demand of Kamal Kumari. The Petitioners were accordingly stated to have misappropriated those articles and committed a criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE trial Magistrate to whom the above complaint was presented on 25th August, 1962 recorded the statement of the complainant on that very day. A copy of the complaint was then ordered to be sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, for enquiry and report under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. The case was thereafter adjourned to 10th September, 1962 to await the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.