Sheila Gupta vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 4753 Del

$~26
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                    DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 14, 2012


+    CRL.REV.P. 216/2012 & CRL.M.A. No.4953/2012 (Stay)

     SHEILA GUPTA                               ..... Petitioner
                      Through :      Mr.Randhir Jain, Adv.
                 versus

     STATE                                      ..... Respondent
                         Through :   Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for
                                     State.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)

%

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sheila Gupta, mother-in-law of the complainant Anshu Gupta impugning the order dated 17.09.2011 vide which learned MM ordered for framing of charge against her for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.

2. Notice of the petitioner was given to the State.

3. Arguments heard.

4. On behalf of petitioner, it has been submitted that even as per the complainant, there was entrustment to the petitioner. Further whatever allegations are made in the complaint, it was common to respondents No.2 to 5. Learned MM has discharged respondents No.3 to 5 but on the same allegations, which have been considered to be vague by learned MM, accused No.2 Smt.Sheila Gupta has been ordered to be charged for committing the offence punishable

under Section 406 IPC. It has been further submitted that in the absence of any averment regarding the entrustment of the jewellery or any other dowry article with the petitioner i.e. accused No.2 Sheila Gupta, the revision petition may be allowed and the order dated 17.09.2011 for framing of the charge against the petitioner may be set aside.

5. The case FIR No.130/07, PS Sriniwaspuri was registered on the direction of learned MM on the application under Section 156(3) in Complaint Case No.138/2 of 2008 filed by Smt. Anshu Gupta before learned MM. The allegations against the present petitioner on the basis of which charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC has been framed are given in para 6 of the complaint, which are as under :

'That on 15.3.2006 when the complainant was residing in rented house, accused No.2 to 5 came in the said house and took the entire dowry articles jewellery and other istridhan of the complainant and when the complainant objected for the said illegal acts of accused No.2 to 4 they replied that, they have taken permission for the same from accused no.1. When the complainant told this facts to the accused no.1, accused no.1 abused the complainant by taking favour of accused no.2 to 5.'

6. In the impugned order, while ordering for framing of charge against accused No.2 Sheila Gupta, learned MM observed as under :

'As far as offence u/s 406 IPC is concerned complainant has stated that on 15.03.2006 her entire articles given at the time of marriage were taken away by the other accused persons in the absence of husband. It is a vague allegation as she has not stated as to how they could have lifted the furniture and other household articles. She has not even specified those articles. As far as mother-in-law Sheela is concerned it has been specifically stated that she has taken away the entire jewellery and has not returned the same on demand. She is

charged for the offence u/s 406 IPC and other accused persons are discharged for the offence u/s 406 IPC. Formal charge be framed accordingly.'

7. On behalf of petitioner, it has been submitted that in the absence of any allegations regarding entrustment or dominion over the property, the learned MM could not have ordered for framing of charge against this accused for committing the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, while on the same allegations discharging the other accused persons for the same offence.

8. On behalf of State, learned APP has submitted that Section 405 IPC defines criminal breach of trust and Section 406 IPC provides punishment for criminal breach of trust. At the stage of framing of charge, the averments made in the complaint prima facie make out a case for framing of the charge against the present accused who in her capacity as mother-in-law was entrusted with the istridhan articles of the complainant which she refused to return on demand.

9. The charge framed against the accused Sheila Gupta on 14.03.2012 reads as under :

'That on or after 26.04.2001 you were entrusted with the stridhan articles of the complainant which you refused to return on demand and hereby committed offence under Section 406 IPC and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct you be tried by this Court for the above stated offence.'

10. A bare reading of the complaint does not disclose either entrustment of the istridhan articles by the complainant to her mother-in-law i.e. accused Sheila Gupta nor there is any averment in the complaint as to when she asked for return of the dowry articles which was refused by her mother-in-law.

11. In my view, no case of entrustment of istridhan articles was made out by the complainant for which the accused could be charged for committing criminal breach of trust. No doubt, in the cases like the present one where the family members of the husband are chargehseeted for committing the criminal breach of trust in respect of dowry articles, it does not contemplate entrustment with al technicalities of law of trust.

12. The allegations made in the complaint specifically referring to para 6, the only inference that can be drawn from the complaint is that accused No.2 to 5 took away all the dowry articles and other istridhan of the complainant despite being objected to by her for the said illegal acts of accused No.2 to 5. It is further mentioned by her that when she raised objection, accused No.2 to 5 replied that they had the permission from accused No.1 i.e. her husband. Obviously, when the articles were allegedly taken out forcibly under objection of complainant who was owner of the said property claimed by her to be her dowry articles/istridhan, there could not be any entrustment by her. In these circumstances, learned MM committed grave error in framing charge against petitioner Sheila Gupta for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. The impugned order dated 17.09.2011 to the extent that petitioner Sheila Gupta was charged for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is set aside.

13. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and petitioner is discharged of the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. A copy of this order be sent to learned Trial Court.

PRATIBHA RANI, J AUGUST 14, 2012/'st'