ADNAN HASSAN KHAN Vs. IRSHAD AHMAD KAMILI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the complaint filed by respondent No.1 against them alleging commission offences under Sec. 403 and 406 RPC, which is stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (2nd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar. Challenge has also been thrown to order dtd. 15/7/2021 passed by the learned trial Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate has, after observing that prima facie offences under Sec. 403 and 406 RPC are made out against the petitioners and co-accused issued process, issued against the petitioners.

(2.) It appears that respondent No.2, who happens to be the wife of co-accused Farhan Hassan Khan, had filed the impugned complaint before the trial Magistrate impleading petitioner No.1 and 2, the brothers of her husband, and petitioner No.3, the mother of her husband, as accused in the said complaint. It was alleged in the impugned complaint that marriage between respondent No.2 and co-accused Farhan Hassan Khan, had taken place in the month of July, 2016. It was further alleged that respondent No.2/complainant was continuously tortured and harassed by the accused persons in connection with demands of dowry and she was forced to leave the matrimonial house without allowing her to even have her additional pair of clothes. It was alleged that respondent No.2 was dragged out mercilessly and illegally from her matrimonial home by the petitioners on the directions of her husband, who wanted to desert her and grab her belongings. It was further alleged that the accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy for demanding excessive dowry from the complainant and that they intend to take away the assets and articles belonging to the complainant. According to the complainant, she had carried with her articles/assets including golden ornaments to her matrimonial home at the time of the marriage and the accused intend to deprive her of the same. She had further alleged that these articles and ornaments were given by her in trust to the accused persons and despite demands made by her, the accused failed to return these articles/gold ornaments. It was also alleged that the complainant has apprehension that the accused would misappropriate these articles by converting the same to their own use. It was further averred in the impugned complaint that the well-wishers and relatives tried their level best to settle the matter between the parties but the accused did not relent. Thus, according to the complainant, the accused persons committed the offence of criminal breach of trust as they have taken away these articles including gold ornaments and refused to hand over the same back to her.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate recorded the preliminary statement of the complainant and thereafter directed the concerned SHO to conduct enquiry/investigation in terms of Sec. 202 of the Cr. P. C. The SHO concerned conducted the enquiry/investigation and submitted his report before the learned Magistrate. In his report, the SHO submitted that the husband of the complainant, Farhan Hassan Khan, has proceeded to Dubai where he is employed in some company. In the report it has been submitted that in the year 2017, the complainant gave birth to a child who remains unwell. It has also been submitted that the relations between the complainant and her husband remained strained due to unknown reasons, as a consequence whereof the accused Farhan Hassan Khan, brought back the complainant from Dubai and left her at Srinagar. The report indicates that in March, 2020, the complainant lodged an FIR bearing No.12 of 2020 for offences under Sec. 498A and 506 of IPC against her husband and other relatives. Husband of the complainant is stated to be residing abroad and he has not joined the investigation. The enquiry officer has further submitted that as per the directions of the learned Magistrate, he along with the complainant went to the house of her husband and on the basis of demarcation of the complainant, all the articles belonging to her, excepting eight gold coins were recovered from the room of the complainant.