M.M.PUNCHHI, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for revision against an order of Shri K.C. Dang, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, whereby the petitioners along with another close relative, were summoned by the learned Magistrate under section 406/34, Indian Penal Code, on a complaint instituted by the respondent.
(2.) THE facts giving rise thereto are these :
(3.) THE complainant is the brother of one Ravinder Kumar. The said Ravinder Kumar was in the month of March, 1981 engaged to Miss Saroj Kumari, daughter of Raje Ram, one of the present petitioners. The other petitioner Subhash Chander is the son of Raje Ram. At the time of the engagement, the parties exchanged customary presents. As disclosed in paragraph 3 of the come complaint Saroj Kumari was gifted a silk sari and gold ornaments of the description mentioned therein in observance of the ceremony of "Chuni" as prevalent in Punjabi community. Since the engagement had to be broken off, for reasons -with which we are not concerned, and the customary gifts had not been returned by the petitioners, he filed a criminal complaint. After recording some preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners, and not the wife of Raje Ram as accused persons. The point to be considered in this petition is whether the customary gifts given by the complainant to the engaged girl Saroj Kumari at the time of the "Chuni" ceremony were given to her in trust and/or could these articles be in trust with the petitioners and their co -accused. As per the allegations in the complaint, these articles were gifted at the time of the engagement in observance of the customary ceremony of "Chuni". Hardly can such an act be called in placing those articles in the hands of the engaged girl or the accused persons in trust, express or implied, so as to fall within the meaning of section 406, Indian Penal Code. At best, these articles might have become returnable dependant on the usages and practices prevalent in the community. But at the time when they were given and taken, it cannot be said that any kind of trust had been created with the accused persons. It is a different matter altogether that the accused persons may be civilly liable to return those articles. For that matter, the criminal court is not the right forum. For that purpose, the complainant has to knock the doors of the civil Court. The proceedings before the criminal Court are thus clearly an abuse of the process of the Court requiring this Court to interfere at the initial stages.;