By invoking section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners in the present petition have prayed to quash the complaint and the proceedings arising therefrom. The appellants herein were shown as accused No.3 and 4 respectively in that complaint. 2. The appellants are the sisters-in-law of the complainant Jagrutiben, respondent No.1 herein. She filed the said complaint against her husband Jayesh Parsottamdas, her mother-in-law Navalben, who were accused No.1 and 2 respectively, and the present appellants arraigned as accused No.3 and 4 respectively. The complaint was for the offences under section 406 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was alleged therein that marriage between the complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized on 20.05.2001 at Veraval. After the marriage both were staying at Veraval along with other accused persons at the matrimonial home. According to the complainant, she had brought from her parental house all the articles of dowry, ornaments, utensils and furniture as well as the articles of Stridhan given by her father, however, after some time, her in-laws started ill treating her. The accused persons wanted to capture her Stridhan ornaments according to the complainant.
2.1 It was alleged that after continuous harassment, on 12.06.2003, accused No.2 threatened to kill her and drove her out of the house and since then she had been staying at her father’s house. It was further stated that as her shtridhan articles which were kept in the custody of the accused persons after marriage out of faith were not being returned and hence she had given notices on 25.12.2004 and again on 21.06.2005 to get back the Stridhan articles. The list of ornaments and articles which were Stridhan according to the complainant, was made part of the complaint.
3. This court heard learned advocate Mr. Y.V.Brahmbhatt for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.I. Pandya on behalf of the State. None appeared for respondent No.1 though the Rule was served.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that in the complaint offence of criminal breach of trust as defined in section 405 of I.P.C. was alleged. However, the contents did not reveal any ingredient of the offence punishable under section 406 of I.P.C. Even on bare reading of the complaint, the offence under section 406, IPC was not disclosed. It was submitted that the complaint against the petitioners was a pressure tactic and an offshoot of another complaint, which the original complainant had filed. It was further submitted that three proceedings before the criminal courts against the accused persons were started, which included a complaint under section 498A and 114 of IPC, pursuant to which Criminal Case No.754 of 2006 was registered. From the record of the petition, it was pointed out that in that case, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and a pursis was filed before the court where the case was pending. It was next pointed out that the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Veraval by his judgement and order dated 8th September 2006 acquitted all the accused persons.
4.1 Learned advocate relied on evidence of the complainant (Exh.23), Nainaben, mother of the complainant (Exh.24) and Shantilal, father of the complainant (Exh.25) recorded in Criminal Case No.754 of 2006 to point out that the allegations against the petitioners herein were withdrawn. Learned advocate further pointed out that Jagrutiben had filed proceedings under section 125 of CRPC, which was also compromised between the parties. In light of all the above facts, it was submitted that the proceedings pursuant to the present complaint cannot be permitted to continue any further. It was submitted that if they are continued, it would lead to only harassment to the petitioners.
4.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecution could not dispute that the matrimonial disputes between the parties had come to an end, and in Criminal Case No.754 of 2006, the husband and mother-in-law were acquitted.
5. The genesis of the complaint in question was matrimonial disputes between wife Jagrutiben-respondent No.1 herein and husband Jayeshbhai. On 23.07.2005 Jagrutiben had lodged a complaint under section 498A, 323, 506(2) of IPC against her husband, mother-in-law as well as the present petitioners being her sisters in law registered at Veraval Police Station as Crime Register No.3083 of 2005. They were arraigned as accused No.1 to 4 respectively in that complaint. The complaint which is subject matter of present petition was filed subsequently on 19.06.2006 and the fact of filing of aforementioned previous complaint was disclosed and mentioned in the instant complaint itself.
5.1 Pursuant to the previous complaint as aforesaid, Criminal Case No.754 of 2006 was proceeded with. By judgment and order dated 08.09.2006, the competent court acquitted husband and mother-in-law of the complainant. The judgment in that criminal case was placed on record of the present petition.
5.2 The complainant Jagrutiben, her mother Nainaben and her father Shantilal, in their evidence (Exh. 23, Exh. 24 and Exh. 25 respectively) did not support their own case in the complaint and turned hostile. In view of the compromise reached as they were not interested in continuing the proceedings the against the accused persons. The compromise pursis (Exh. 28/1), copy of which is part of record of this petition, indicated that the disputes were settled amicably between both the sides. Furthermore, it was specifically stated in the compromise pursis that the complainant had no grievance whatsoever against Taraben Ashokbhai Borkhataria and Sarojben Kishorbhai Borkhataria – the present petitioners. Another pursis by accused persons Jayeshbhai and Navalben was filed in the aforementioned criminal case stating inter-alia that they had no dispute surviving and had no objection, if the muddamal articles recovered from them were handed over to complainant Jagrutiben and that they had no claim whatsoever towards that. In the maintenance proceedings initiated under section 125 of Cr.P.C. by Jagrutiben, a compromise purshis was submitted stating that the husband and wife had willingly taken a divorce and an amount of Rs.22,30,000/- agreed as permanent alimony was paid by the husband to wife Jagrutiben.
5.3 From the above undisputed facts taken cumulatively, it is clearly brought out that the disputes between the parties, which were matrimonial disputes, did not survive and ended up in settlement. It was willingly arrived at out of court between the parties, pursuant to which the divorce had taken place between the spouses and was mutually accepted by paying a fixed amount towards permanent alimony.
5.4 In the above circumstances, when no disputes are surviving amongst the parties and all the dispute have been settled, it is futile that the present complaint and the proceedings pursuant thereto are permitted to continue. Not only that they would not serve any purpose, they would only amount to the harassment to the petitioner-accused. Given such facts and the situation, the complaint deserves to be quashed.
6. Going to the root of the matter, the learned advocate for the petitioner was right also in submitting that offence punishable under section 406, I.P.C. was not made about. The offence of criminal breach of trust, for which punishing section is 406, is defined in section 405, I.P.C., as under, “Section 405. Criminal breach of trust.
“Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
6.1 The material allegations in the complaint in question are only that the complainant wife at the time of marriage and on subsequent occasion had brought dowry and other valuable articles which were `shtridhan' to her matrimonial home and that they were given in the custody of accused persons out of trust and that they had been retaining the possession of those articles improperly and deceitfully. It was further alleged that their intention was not honest and refused to return the said articles.
6.2 In Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab [(2009) 7 SCC 712], the Supreme Court observed, “ Criminal breach of trust is defined in Section 405 of IPC. The ingredients of an offence of the criminal breach of trust are:
"1. Entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property.
2. That person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person so to do in violation--
(i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or
(ii) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust."
It was further observed, “So far as the allegation in regard to criminal breach of trust is concerned, it related to the dowry articles. No allegation has been made that the appellants are guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 3 and/or 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. If any dowry has been given, the same would attract the provisions of the special act in preference to the general statute. Furthermore, if any article is given by way of dowry, the question of entrustment thereof for or on behalf of the bride would not arise.”
6.3 Considering the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence under section 406, the allegations in the complaint were not sufficient to constitute offence of criminal breach of trust as there was no allegation with regard to (a) dishonest conversion or misappropriation to own use or (b) dishonestly disposing them. The complaint did not mention anywhere about any specific role of either of the petitioners.
6.4 In All Cargo Movers (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badamal Jain [(2007) 14 SCC 776], it was observed by the Supreme Court that criminal proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of process of the court, and further that superior courts while exercise this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice.
Both on facts and in law therefore, the complaint deserves to be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, as allowing criminal proceedings pending for sake of it will be oppressive and in the fact situation obtaining herein, would also be an abuse of process of law.
7. For the reasons and discussion above, the complaint dated 19.03.2006 registered with Veraval Police Station, Veraval, as Crime Register No. I36/2006 is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute.
(N.V. ANJARIA, J.)
(SN DEVU PPS)