- (1.) Heard Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA, for the State and perused the record.This revision is directed against the order dated 15.7.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateV, Ghaziabad in Criminal Complaint No.3064 of 2010, Smt. Alka v. Ram Pratap & Ors., under Sections 406 IPC, PS Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad whereby the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was married with accused Ram Pratap on 28.11.2004 and her parents spent a sum of Rs.7,00,000 on marriage. Her parents and relatives gave sufficient gifts and dowry, which is in possession of the accused persons. The accused persons were not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage and used to harass her on account of demand of Rs.2,00,000 as dowry. A case is pending in respect of harassment and demand of dowry. It was contended that despite demand, the stridhan and other goods given at the time of marriage and entrusted to the accused persons were never returned and, therefore, complaint under Section 406 IPC was filed. Learned Magistrate examined the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses Krishan Pal Singh Rana and Surendra Singh Tomar under Section 202 Cr.P.C. A list of goods given at the time of marriage was also made annexure to the complaint. Learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the list has not been signed by the receivers and the property, the amount paid in cash and milai was a gift and cannot be said to be entrusted to the accused. It has not been specified as to which articles were entrusted to which accused. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that Articles No.l to 39 of the list were dowry items, which were given by the parents of the complainant at the time of marriage to husband and his parents. Articles No.40 to 54 were given as cash and milai and gifts for the relatives. The contention is that husband, motherinlaw and fatherinlaw are responsible for the return of the articles given at the time of marriage, when demanded by the wife and failure to return the same would amount to criminal misappropriation.
(2.) It was pointed out by the Court that the family of the accused includes dei;ar and nanad also and it cannot be presumed that dowry articles were entrusted to devar and nanad also. Learned counsel conceded that devar Shyam Pratap and nanad Km. Rekha may be exempted from summoning and the revision respect of devar and nanad be treated as not pressed by the revisionist. However, in respect of husband, fatherinlaw and motherinlaw, the contention is that they were entrusted with the property mentioned in the list at Articles Nos.l to 39. It was further submitted that if the list has not been signed by the persons who received the property, it can not lead to a conclusion that such articles were not given at the time of dowry whereas, in oral evidence, specific mention was made in the statement of Krishan Pal Singh that the articles mentioned in the list were given to the accused persons.
(3.) 1 have considered the complaint, statement of complainant and her witnesses and the impugned order. As far as the impugned order in respect of husband, motherinlaw and father inlaw of the complainant is concerned, the same cannot be said to be justified. Someone from the family of the accused has to be responsible for the return of the articles given at the time of dowry, if the couple is not living together. Apparently, husband and his parents are responsible for the same. Thus, in respect of husband and his parents, the dismissal of complaint is not proper. Revision is allowed.;