GURDEV SINGH Vs. NACHHATTAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurdev Singh petitioner has come to this Court in this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and seeks quashing of complaint dated January 29, 1990 (Annexure P-I) and the summoning order dated November 17, 1990 (Annexure P-3) passed by Shri G.S. Dhiman, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana.

(2.) A complaint has been filed by Nachhattar Kaur, who is daughter-in-law of the petitioner, and according to the allegations made in the complaint, Nachhattar Kaur was married to Daljit Singh, son of the present petitioner, on July 31, 1982, at Village Nizampur, in accordance with Anand Karaj ceremony. At the time of betrothal and marriage ceremony, various articles were given, as per list attached with the complaint. Articles of dowry detailed in Annexure-A were entiusted to Daljit Singh and the articles mentioned in Annexure-B were entrusted to the present-petitioner. However, Daljit Singh and his family members were not satisfied with the articles of dowry given by her parents. The complainant was taunted for insufficiency of dowry. Ultimately, on demands being made, father of the complainant gave a Kelvinator Refrigerator and Weston Television to the petitioner and his relations. But still they were not satisfied and continued to maltreat the complainant. In November, 1987, the complainant was given beatings and turned out of the house in wearing apparel. The complainant has been deprived of her /stridhan which articles have not been returned to her in spite of demand.

(3.) Mr. Walia, who appears for the petitioner has urged that the articles given as per list Annexure-B are not stated to have been entrusted for the benefit of the petitioner but in the form of customary gifts to be given to various relations of Daljit Singh and even if the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted at their face value, no offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out because it is only if the articles entrusted are refused to be returned in accordance with the terms of the trust that offence of criminal breach of trust can be made out. This proposition could not be contested by Mr. Chopra, appearing for the respondent. I agree with the contention that there is no allegation in the complaint that any articles to be used by the complainant at her in-laws house were in fact entrusted to the present petitioner. No offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is thus, made out against the petitioner.