H.R. Khanna, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 561 -A of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Jaswant Rai and six other Petitioners for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh under Section 406, Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 25th August, 1962 Kamal Kumari Jain filed a complaint under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, against the seven Petitioners on the allegations that she was married to Karnal Kant Petitioner No. 2, on 18th April, 1961 at her parents' residence at 4, Hailey Road, New Delhi, Jaswant Rai Petitioner No. 1 is the elder brother of Karnal Kant and Uma Rani Petitioner No. 6 is the wife of Jaswant Rai. Daya Wanti Petitioner No 7 is the mother of Karnal Kant and Jawahar Lal Petitioner No. 3 is the younger brother of Karnal Kant. Subhash Wati and Nakshtra Devi Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 are the younger sisters of Karnal Kant and are unmarried. It is stated that at the time of the marriage, the parents and relatives of Kamal Kumari gave gifts worth Rs. 42,000/ -, A number of ornaments and clothes were also given to Karnal Kumari, as stridhan by her husband's relatives. Those articles were handed over to Karnal Kant, Jaswant Rai, Uma Rani, Jawahar Lal, Subash Wati and Nakshtra Devi by the parents of Kamal Kumari at the vide ceremony for being handed over to Kamal Kumari at her husband's house at Chandigarh or Ludhiana. Immediately after her arrival at her husband's house. Kamal Kumari was subjected to harsh treatment by her husband and his relatives on the ground that the dowry brought by her was not enough. Kamal Kumari then wrote to her parents about her ill -treatment. The news otherwise also trickled out to her parents, where -upon Kamal Kumari's father Kanshi Ram Jain accompanied by Sagar Chand came came to Chandigarh on 5th July, 1961. Kamal Kumari was then turned out by her husband and his relatives from the house and her demand for the return of her valuables was turned down contemptuously. It is further stated that the valuable articles and ornaments which were entrusted to Petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 at the time of the marriage were handed over on arrival at Chandigarh by those Petitioners to Daya Wanti Petitioner No. 7 who refused to part with those articles in spite of the demand of Kamal Kumari. The Petitioners were accordingly stated to have misappropriated those articles and committed a criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) THE trial Magistrate to whom the above complaint was presented on 25th August, 1962 recorded the statement of the complainant on that very day. A copy of the complaint was then ordered to be sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, for enquiry and report under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. The case was thereafter adjourned to 10th September, 1962 to await the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 10th September, 1962, S. I. Gain Chand of police station Chandigarh, to whom it appears the matter was entrusted, made a report in which there was a reference to a refrigerator and Rs. 10,000/ -having been given to Kamal Kant by the father of Kamal Kumari at or about the time of the betrothal ceremony. There was also reference to some clothes, furniture, radiogram, crockery and ornaments having been presented at the time of the marriage. These articles were handed over to Jaswant Rai, his wife, brother and sisters for safe custody at Chandigarh or Ludhiana where the new couple was to settle. The couple lived happily for some months, but thereafter their relations became strained because of taunts hurled at Kamal Kumari for not bringing sufficient dowry. She was ultimately turned out with three clothes. The version of Jaswant Rai was stated to be to the effect that the father of Kamal Kumari instigated Kamal Kant to separate from the other members of his family and settle in Delhi. When Kamal Kant refused, the father of Kamal Kumari took his daughter to Delhi along with the ornaments. Kamal Kant, husband of Kamal Kumari, was stated to have admitted that Rs. 10,000/ - presented to him at the time of betrothal ceremony were with him and that the refrigerator and radiogram presented to him were lying at his house and his wife could come to him and make use of those articles. On 10th September, 1962, the trial Magistrate passed the following order - Present. Smt. Kamal Kumari complainant with her counsel Shri Gur Rattan Pal Singh Advocate. Heard. I have also gone through the report of S. I. Gian Chand which has been received to -day from him through S. H. O. Police Station Chandigarh. It is, however, sent back to the S. H. O. police station, Chandigarh, for further enquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He should record some more evidence and if on the basis of that evidence he finds that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he should register a case against them and investigate the case in a regular manner." A police report, it appears, was thereafter submitted and on 11th October, 1962, the trial Magistrate passed the following order - Present. Smt. Kamal Kumari with her counsel Shri Gur Rattanpal Singh Advocate. The police report has been examined. Shri Gain Chand S. I. has reported vide his note dated 6th October 1962 on the file that the opinion of the Prosecuting Inspector. Rupar, which is also on the file, is not clear I am surprised at this report since the report of the P.I is quite unequivocal and does not involve any ambiguity whatsoever. He has clearly seated vide his report dated 29th September, 1962 that the complaint does disclose an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. I agree with him since prima facie, a case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code appears to have been made out against the accused. A case should, therefore, be registered under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and then properly investigated. A copy of this order along with the enquiry file should be sent to S. H. O., P. S. Chandigarh for necessary action. ;