- (1.)THIS petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 949/04 (Anita vs. Subhash and others) pending in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal together with charge framed on 3.11.06.
(2.)UNDISPUTEDLY, petitioner no.1 Subhash is the husband of Smt. Anita Joshi. Petitioner no.2 is dead, he was father-in law of Smt. Anita, petitioner no.3 Smt. Kashi Bai is mother-in-law of Smt. Anita. Marriage of Anita took place in the year 1986 at Bhopal. Unfortunately, difference arose within three months of marriage and Anita lodged complaint on 23rd March,1987 at Jabalpur. On her report Omti police filed charge sheet against the petitioners before CJM,Jabalpur, and on 22.2.89, CJM discharged the petitioners from offence under Section 406 IPC. Against the order of discharge a petition was filed in this Court which stood dismissed on 5.7.1990. This order becomes final and still on 23.11.97 Smt. Anita filed a criminal complaint for offence under Section 406 IPC which was not only registered by CJM, Bhopal, but charge has also been framed so this petition has been filed to quash the proceeding as it is not only time barred, but once it has been decided and matter was settled, then petitioners cannot be tried again for the same offence.
Respondent Smt. Anita Joshi has objected it and submitted that complaint of 1997 is maintainable as for offence under Section 406 IPC, learned CJM, Jabalpur on 22.2.89, at the time of framing of charge, ordered that case under Section 406 IPC is not made out as no demand has been made by complainant Smt. Anita from the petitioners to return the articles of Dahej (Stridhan). When no demand has been made then Section 406 IPC is not applicable, so they were discharged from offence under Section 406 IPC and charge under Section 498-A/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been found.

On perusal of said order, it is crystal clear that no final adjudication of offence under Section 406 IPC was made as no demand was made at that time, so after making the demand and on non-fulfillment of the demand by the petitioners in the year 1997 when demand was not adhered to, then Smt. Anita filed complaint on 23.11.97.

(3.)LEARNED counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) 2 SCC 397 in which it was held that "Stridhana" is absolute property of the wife and it cannot be joint property of the wife with the husband. It has also been held for the purpose of Section 468 and 472 that as per averment in complaint that the complainant demanded from the accused return of her stridhana properties on 5.12.87, complaint filed on 10.9.90 was held not to be time barred. It has been further observed by the Apex Court that power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings at initial stage should be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent miscarriage of justice or when it would tantamount to abuse of process of Court.
Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Raghbir Singh vs. State of Haryana Crimes III- 1990(1) 600 wherein it has been held that under Section 468 and 482 Cr.P.C., complaint after 28-30 years without condoning delay cannot be allowed to run, but in this case under Section 406 IPC the limitation will start from the date of refusal of demand and demand was made in 1997 so complaint filed in the year 1997 is within time.