Jugabrata Devi And Anr vs State Of Assam And Anr

This petition is filed by the present two petitioners under Section 482 CrPC, for quashing of the proceeding drawn under Section 403 of the IPC, read with Section 93 of the CrPC, in C.R. Case No.372C/2015 and to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 02.04.2015, whereby process has been initiated against the petitioners under Section 403 of the IPC, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

The petitioner No.1 is a practicing lawyer whereas the petitioner No.2 is a resident of Numaligarh, working in Numaligarh Refinery Limited. The brother of the petitioners namely Sarat Chandra Nath solemnized his marriage with Smti Bharati Devi (respondent No.2 herein) on 26.05.2013 as per the Hindu rites. On 03.12.2014, the respondent No.2 filed an FIR in the All Women Police Station which was registered as the All Women P.S. Case No.129/2014, u/s.498-A of the IPC, against the petitioners and other family members. The respondent No.2 has also filed another case being D.V. Case No.40M/2015, before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, against the petitioners and other family members. The respondent No.2 also filed one complaint case being C.R. Case No.372C/2015, before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, under Section 406 of the IPC, read with Section 93 of the CrPC and after recording the statement of the complainant and other two witnesses u/s.200 CrPC and after perusal of the statements, the learned Court took cognizance of the offence u/s.403 IPC, against the two petitioners along with the husband of the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 02.04.2015.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present Criminal Petition on the grounds inter alia that the complaint petition itself coupled with the evidence recorded under Section 202 CrPC and the evidence so recorded in the course of trial, no offence under Section 403 of the IPC is made out. The complainant/respondent No.2 herself measurably failed to prove any sort of entrustment or misappropriation on the part of the present two petitioners so as to attract the offence under Section 403 of the IPC. That apart, it has been submitted that in her evidence the complainant herself admitted about the receipt of the Stridhan articles on the strength of the search warrant issued by the Court and it was the husband of the complainant who raised no objection for recovery of article as sought for by the complainant.

Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in fact the aforesaid case which proceeded against the husband of the complainant has ended on acquittal and the learned Court has passed the order on 25.01.2018, acquitting the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2.

Accordingly it has been submitted that the present two petitioners being similarly situated, nothing remains on their part to face the trial where there is dearth of evidence. Copy of the judgment has been produced before this Court which was delivered much after filing of the present petition.

I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials on record.

The present two petitioners are the sister-in-laws of the complainant/respondent No.2 . In her complaint petition itself, the complainant has not made any averment to the effect that the accused persons dishonestly misappropriated the Stridhan properties of the complainant. That apart, her complaint petition as well as the evidence is totally silent as about the Stridhan articles given in her marriage and as to whether such articles were entrusted to the present petitioners. In her statement under Section 200 CrPC as well as in course of trial, the complainant has simply stated that she filed the present case to recover the Stridhan properties because the properties were destroying by the above persons. Similar is the version of the other witnesses.

Obviously their evidence is insufficient to hold that the accused/ petitioners dishonestly misappropriated these articles. On the other hand, she herself has admitted that all those articles were recovered in good condition on the strength of the search warrant issued by the trial Court, which also indicates that the articles were not at all destroyed or misappropriated as has been alleged.

This Court also took the judicial notice of the judgment that has been passed by the learned trial Court in connection with the present case. The learned trial Court has also appreciated all the aforesaid aspect that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the articles were given to the custody of the accused persons and/or any article that were seized and returned to the complainant was destroyed.

Section 403 of the IPC describes dishonest miss-appropriation of property as below:-

"Section. 403 Dishonest misappropriation of property - Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

Obviously the evidence of the complaint that has been discussed above has not disclosed about any sort of misappropriation on the part of present accused petitioners towards the said property of the complainant so as to attract the ingredients of the aforesaid offence. The trial Court has already acquitted the husband of the complainant and the present petitioners are also on the same footing.

In such given backdrop, further continuance of the aforesaid proceeding in respect of the present petitioners will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The further proceeding pertaining to C.R. Case No.372C/2015, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in respect of the present two petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside.

The petition stands allowed accordingly.