High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Km. Meera & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 4946 of 2007  RD-AH 4156 (12 March 2007)
(Court No. 48)
Criminal Misc. Application No. 4946 of 2007
1. Km. Meera daughter of Basu Lal.
2. Smt. Manju wife of Fateh Bahadur.
3. Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Basu Lal.
4. Om Prakash.
5. Chandra Prakash both sons of Basu Lal.
All R/o Nai Basti Tempo Stand, Nilthama P.S.
Cantt. District Lucknow. ..... Accused -Applicant.
1. State of U.P.
2. Smt. Madhu alias Guriya wife
Ram Kumar A-2/D Railway Colony,
Nirala Nagar, P.S. Govind Nagar,
District Kanpur Nagar. ...........Complainant -Opp.parties.
Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J
1. Opp. Party No. 2, complainant is the wife of applicant no.5, Chandra Prakash. She filed a complaint Case No. 6889 of 2006 ( Madhu @ Guriya Vers. Chandra Prakasn and others) against applicants Km. Meera, Smt. Manju, Smt. Shanti Devi, Om Prakash and husband Chandra Prakash before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and the Magistrate has ordered that summons be issued against them under Section 406 I.P.C. The applicants have, therefore, come here under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for termination of these proceedings against them.
2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, advocate for the applicants and Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
3. Applicant No. 3 is the mother of the husband of the complainant. Applicant no. 4 is elder brother while applicant no.2 Manju is married sister and applicant No.1 Kumari Meera is unmarried sister of complainant's husband Chandra Prakash.
4. As will appear from the record, they have all been implicated for retaining the articles given in the marriage as Stri Dhan and for not giving it back on demand of Opp. Party No.2 complainant. It must be noted that in the present time, there is a growing tendency of roping each and every member of the family of the husband in such cases with a view to exert pressure on the husband to come to terms.
5. Entrustment is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of misappropriation. It is plain that the offence of misappropriation , if any, could be said to have been committed, if at all, by the husband, because the relationship of the wife was primarily with the husband and the Stridhan, if any, could be entrusted only to the husband. Even if , the Stridhan articles are in possession of other persons, they should be deemed to have given by the Husband and there will be no direct entrustment to other relatives of the Husband. The primary entrustment is to the Husband and must be deemed confined to him alone. If articles were given to other person, the other person cannot be responsible for misappropriation because there is no direct relationship between the wife and those persons . The entrustment being to the husband alone, the other family members, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any offence of misappropriation. This being the legal position, the summoning of the other members of the family beside the husband was unwarranted and the Magistrate should have himself deleted their names from the array of accused. The continuance of these persons in the array of accused is grave misuse and abuse of the process of law and needs to be eliminated unhesitatingly.
6. In the result, the order of the Magistrate, issuing summons to the accused is modified to the extent that it will sumrise only in relation to accused-Husband Chnara Prakash. The name of the remaining accused shall be deleted from the array of the accused.
7. Petition partly allowed.
4946 /2007 n.u.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.