RAJ DULARI Vs. RAJINDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's complaint under Section 403 Indian Penal Code against her husband (since divorced) has been dismissed by Sessions Judge on the ground that the same was barred by limitation as laid down in section 468(2) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For this conclusion of his the Sessions Judge has primarily relied upon the averments made in para 4 of the complaint, which reads as under :-

(2.) HE formed the opinion that the moment the petitioner was thrown out by the respondent from her matrimonial house an offence under Section 403 Indian penal Code too was committed. This conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge appears to me to be wholly wrong. Turning out the petitioner form the house by the respondent did not amount to misappropriation of her property. It is abundantly clear from the illustration to section 403 Indian penal Code that misappropriation is committed when the person who is already in custody or possession of the property belonging to the complainant, refuses to deliver that property to the complainant. Mere custody, possession or retention of the property by the accused without anything further does not by itself amount to misappropriation. In somewhat similar circumstances a similar opinion was expressed by Tewatia, J. in Avtar Singh and another v. Kirpal Kaur and another, 1979, The Criminal Law Times, 286.