{"id":2043,"date":"2011-01-05T13:46:48","date_gmt":"2011-01-05T08:16:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/?p=2043"},"modified":"2011-01-05T13:46:48","modified_gmt":"2011-01-05T08:16:48","slug":"2653-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/2653-2005\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 406 and 498a of IPC, quash"},"content":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI<\/strong><\/p>\n

SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE
\nCrl.M.C. No.2645-53\/2005
\nRESERVED ON : 4.10.2007
\nDATE OF DECISION: 12.10.2007<\/p>\n

Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal & Ors …….. Petitioners
\nthrough: Mr. R.M.Sinha, Advocate<\/p>\n

VERSUS<\/p>\n

State & Anr. …….. Respondents
\nthrough: Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Advocate for the complainant.
\nMr. Jaideep Malik, Advocate for the State.<\/p>\n

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.<\/p>\n

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prays for quashing the FIR No.1006\/2002 registered at P.S. Nangloi under Sections 498-A\/406\/34 IPC and the proceedings arising out of the said FIR.<\/p>\n

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the marriage between petitioner no.1, Sanjeev Aggarwal and respondent no.2, Sunita Aggarwal was solemnized on 17.7.94 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Unfortunately, the marriage turned sour and they started living separately since the year 1999. A daughter was born to the parties out of the said wedlock.<\/p>\n

3. Respondent no.2 filed a complaint against under-noted persons on 21.10.2002 for an offence under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34, IPC.<\/p>\n

S.No.Name-Relation with the complaint
\n1.Sanjeev Aggarwal (Petitioner No.1)Husband
\n2.Nand Kishore Aggarwal (Petitioner No.2)Father-in-law
\n3.Sushila Devi Aggarwal (Petitioner No.3)Mother-in-law
\n4.Satish Aggarwal (Petitioner No.4)Brother-in-law (Jeth)
\n5.Rajni Aggarwal (Petitioner No.5)Sister-in-law (Jethani)
\n6.Sunil Aggarwal (Petitioner No.6)Brother-in-law (Jeth)
\n7.Shalini Aggarwal (Petitioner No.7)Sister-in-law (Jethani)
\n8.Rajiv Aggarwal (Petitioner No.8)Brother-in-law (Jeth)
\n9.Preeti Aggarwal (Petitioner No.9)Sister-in-law (Jethani)
\n10.Dr. N.K. Gupta Nephew of Petitioner no.3<\/p>\n

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No.1006\/02 dated 18\/112002 was registered.<\/p>\n

5. Chronological narration of facts, as alleged in the complaint, is as follows :-
\nA On 2.7.94, families of petitioner no.1, Sanjiv and respondent no.2, Sunita
\nmutually decided that Sunita and Sanjiv would enter into a matrimonial alliance. A
\ndemand for dowry was put forth by the family of Sanjiv. On that date itself, a sum of
\nRs.5 lakhs was given by the father of Sunita to the family of Sanjiv. (It is pertinent to
\nnote that it is not specifically alleged in the complaint that as to which family
\nmember of Sanjiv, the aforesaid sum of Rs.5 lakhs was entrusted)
\nB. On 13.7.94, Sunita’s father-in-law and Jeth Satish demanded a sum of
\nRs.51,000\/- from the father of Sunita.
\nC. On 14.7.94 i.e. on the day of Tikka ceremony, father of Sunita gave all the
\ndowry articles as demanded by the Sanjiv’s family members including the sum of
\nRs.51,000\/- to the family of Sanjiv. (Again, it is not specifically alleged that which
\nfamily member was entrusted with the afore-mentioned dowry articles)
\nD. On 17.7.94, Sanjiv and Sunita entered into a matrimonial alliance.
\nE. As per the complaint, the problems started right from the day of the marriage.
\nF. On 17.7.94, when Sunita reached in-laws’ house at Kasganj, U.P. she was
\ntaunted and abused by her Jethanis (Preeti, Shalini and Rajni) for bringing less
\ndowry. Later on, her mother-in-law also abused her for showing disrespect to the
\nJethanis and she was beaten by all four of them including her father-in-law and
\nhusband.
\nG. On 31.8.94, the husband Sanjiv went to U.S.A and left Sunita at her parents’
\nhouse.
\nH. On 11.7.95, Sanjiv returned from U.S.A and took Sunita to his in-laws’ house
\nat Kasganj. At Kasganj, Sunita was harassed by Sanjiv and his family members. (It is
\nnoteworthy that the complainant has not specifically alleged that as to which of the
\nfamily members used to her harass her. It is further relevant to note that one Jeth
\nRajiv and his Preeti were staying at U.S.A and not at the house at Kasganj).
\nI. On 21.8.95, the complainant along with her husband Sanjiv and Jethani Preeti
\nwent to U.S.A where she was harassed, beaten and was also not allowed to speak to
\nher parents in India.
\nJ. On 8.9.95, Sunita returned to India alone.
\nK. On 15.4.96, Sunita gave birth to a baby girl. It is alleged in the complaint that
\nneither Sanjiv nor his family members came to give their best wishes to Sunita and
\nher daughter. It is further alleged that Sanjiv demanded a flat in Delhi from the father
\nof the Sunita and the said demand was satisfied.
\nL. Thereafter on 4.6.97 Sunita made her second visit to U.S.A along with
\nhusband Sanjiv and daughter. Again Sanjiv, his brother Rajiv and wife Preeti
\nharassed Sunita. They further demanded a sum of Rs.40 lakhs for construction of a
\nnursing home.
\nM. Since father of Sunita was not in a financial position to meet the said demand,
\nSunita was sent back to India. She returned to her parents’ house in India on 2.11.97.
\nN. Sanjiv returned to India in June 1998 and again took Sunita to the
\nhouse at Kasganj. At Kasganj’s house, Sanjiv and his brother Satish harassed Sunita
\nto such an extent that she decided to end her life by taking sleeping pills. Fortunately,
\nher father reached in time and saved her life.
\nO. On 30.10.98, Sunita made her third visit to U.S.A along with her husband
\nSanjiv and daughter. Further, Sanjiv, her father-in-law and mother-in-law demanded
\na plot in India for a nursing home from Sunita’s father. The said demand was fulfilled
\nby Sunita’s father. On 5.2.99, the couple returned to India.
\nP. Sunita’s husband and his family members were still not satisfied and demanded
\nfor the construction of the nursing home. Sanjiv withdrew from the company of
\nSunita and left for U.S.A .
\nQ. Thereafter Sunita was residing at her parents house in Delhi. When she went to
\nthe house at Kasganj to collect her istridhan she was abused and beaten by her Jeth
\nSatish, Sunil and their wives Rajni and Shalini respectively. They also refused to
\nreturn her istridhan.
\nR. Sunita did not leave hope and tried to save her marriage by talking to her
\nhusband Sanjiv over the phone.
\nS. In January 2002, Sanjiv visited India but did not inform Sunita about his visit.
\nSomehow Sunita learnt about Sanjiv’s visit to India and went to house at Kasganj.
\nThere she found that her almirah was broken and all her jewelery and valuable
\narticles were missing.<\/p>\n

6. The gist of the afore-noted complaint is that Sunita has made allegations of dowry harassment and illegal retention of istridhan against her husband and his family members.<\/p>\n

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all and sundry allegations has been levelled against the petitioners. That the present complaint is filed with a malafide intention of harassing the petitioners and that the present complaint and FIR is an abuse of process of court.<\/p>\n

8. The question in the instant case is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose offences under Section 498-A and\/or Section 406, IPC.<\/p>\n

9. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under :-
\n\u201c Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever,
\nbeing the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
\ncruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
\nyears and shall also be liable to fine.
\nExplanation – For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means –
\n(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
\ncommit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
\nmental or physical) of the woman; or
\n(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her
\nor any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
\nvaluable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to
\nmeet such demand.\u201d<\/p>\n

10. Under Explanation (a) the cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to
\ndrive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
\nhealth.<\/p>\n

11. Explanation (b) to Section 498-A provides that cruelty means harassment of
\nthe woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
\nrelated to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or
\nis on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.<\/p>\n

12. Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The
\nharassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any
\nperson related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand for
\nproperty etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to
\nhave been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that
\nit is cruelty and this is made punishable under the section.<\/p>\n

13. In the decision reported as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v State of
\nMaharashtra & Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18, the Bombay High Court had observed that it is
\nnot every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498-A IPC .
\nBeating and harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill
\nillegal demands.<\/p>\n

14. Similar view was taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision
\nreported as Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2) Recent Criminal
\nReports 53 wherein it was observed that offence under Section 498-A IPC would not
\nbe made out if beating given to bride by husband and his relations was due to
\ndomestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry.<\/p>\n

15. While interpreting the provisions of Section 304-B, 498-A, 306 and 324, IPC
\nin the decision reported as State of H.P.v Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219 the
\nSupreme Court observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under explanation (b)
\nto Section 498-A must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing
\nthe case will fall beyond the scope of Section 498-A, IPC.<\/p>\n

16. It is thus clear from the reading of Section 498-A IPC and afore-noted judicial
\npronouncements that pre-condition for attracting the provisions of Explanation (b) to
\nSection 498-A IPC is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for
\nthe sake of giving torture to the women without any nexus with the demand then
\nsuch a cruelty will not be covered under explanation (b) to Section 498-A, IPC. It
\nmay be a cruelty within the scope of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as held by the
\nSupreme Court in the decision reported as Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR
\n1998 SC 121. In said case, it was observed that cruelty under Section 498-A IPC is
\ndistinct from the cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.<\/p>\n

17. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under :-
\n\u201cPunishment for criminal breach of trust.–Whoever commits criminal breach of trust
\nshall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
\nextend to three years, or with fine, or with both.\u201d
\n18. Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code defines ‘criminal breach of trust’ as under :-
\n\u201cCriminal breach of trust–Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or
\nwith any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own
\nuse that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any
\ndirection of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of
\nany legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of
\nsuch trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of
\ntrust.\u201d<\/p>\n

19. The basic requirement to bring home the accusations under Section 405 is to
\nprove con-jointly (1) entrustment and (2) whether the accused was actuated by the
\ndishonest intention or not misappropriated it or converted it to his own use to the
\ndetriment of the persons who entrusted it.<\/p>\n

20. In the decision reported as Raj Kumar Khanna v. State 95 (2002) DLT 147, the
\ncomplainant had filed a complaint against her husband and his family members under
\nsections 498-A, 406 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. Noting that there was no
\nallegation of entrustment of any property against the father-in-law of the
\ncomplainant, this Court quashed the FIR qua the Father-in-law. In the said decision,
\nit was observed as under:-
\n\u201cAdmittedly neither the compliant nor the supplementary statement show any
\nentrustment of any property to the petitioner. In the absence of entrustment question
\nof criminal breach does not arise. Since there was no entrustment of any articles to
\nthe petitioner, therefore chances of ultimate conviction on this count are bleak. No
\nuseful purpose is going to be served by allowing the proceedings under Section 406
\nIPC to continue against this petitioner……\u201d<\/p>\n

21. In the decision reported as Ms Anu Gill v. State and Anr. 92(2001) DLT 179,
\nnoting that there was no allegation of entrustment in the complaint, this court
\nquashed the FIR against the married sister- in \u2013 law (nanad) of the complainant under
\nsection 498-A and 406 of the I.P.C. While quashing the said FIR , it was observed as
\nunder:-
\n\u201cTo constitute the offence under section 406 IPC there must be clear and specific
\nallegation that the accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it, by
\nthe complainant; that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the
\nsame to his own use or that accused refused to return back the articles when the same
\nwere demanded by the complainant. Perusal of the allegations appearing against the
\npetitioner do not show that the articles of istridhan were even entrusted to her. In the
\nabsence of the allegation of entrustment, question of misappropriation or conversion
\nto her use does not arise. Thus the most vital ingredient to constitute the offence
\nunder section 406 IPC is missing. In view of the above, no case under section 406
\nIPC is spelt out against the petitioner.\u201d<\/p>\n

22. In the decision reported as Pehlad Kumar & Ors v. State of Haryana II(1992)
\nDMC 259, a sweeping statement was made by the complainant that her istridhan was
\nentrusted to the family of the husband. Holding that there was no specific allegation
\nof entrustment against some of the family members, the Punjab & Haryana High
\ncourt quashed the complaint and the consequential proceedings against the said
\nfamily members. It was observed as under:-
\n\u201cFrom these we find that while there are specific allegations about the entrustment of
\ncertain articles to the husband-Pehlad and mother-in-law, the allegations with regard
\nto the entrustment to the other petitioners are general, vague and not specific. Though
\ncertain articles are enumerated, a sweeping statement has been made by the
\ncomplainant that these articles have been entrusted to the other relations of her
\nhusband, namely father-in-law, her brother-in-law and wife of one of the brothers-inlaw.
\nThe complainant has not specifically mentioned as to which item of dowry was
\nentrusted to which of these other petitioners. Therefore, on such vague and general
\nallegations it cannot be stated that the complainant has made out a prima facie case
\nagainst any of the other petitioners than her husband and mother-in-law under
\nSection 406, IPC\u201d<\/p>\n

23. In the present complaint, a sweeping statement has been made by the
\ncomplainant that her istridhan was entrusted to the family of her husband. There are
\nno clear and specific allegations about the entrustment of istridhan to any of the
\npresent petitioners. Complainant has not specifically mentioned as to which item of
\ndowry was entrusted to which of the present petitioners.<\/p>\n

24. It has been alleged by the complainant that her dowry articles were lying at the
\nhouse at Kasganj. The matrimonial house of the complainant was at U.S.A. where
\nher husband was residing. Due to the strained relations between the parties, the
\ncomplainant was constantly moving between Delhi, Kasganj and U.S.A. In all, she
\nmade three visits to U.S.A. for 18 days, 5 months and 3 months respectively. During
\nrest of the time, she mainly stayed at her parents’s house at Delhi and for a very short
\nspan at her in-laws’s house at Kasganj. The normal presumption would be that the
\ncomplainant either kept her dowry articles at her matrimonial house in U.S.A. or at
\nher parents’s house in Delhi. There was no occasion for the complainant to keep her
\ndowry articles at her in-laws’s house at Kasganj. In any case, the complainant has
\nnot stated with clarity as to which dowry article she kept where.<\/p>\n

25. Keeping the interpretation of Section 498-A and 405 IPC in mind, it has to be
\nseen whether the conduct of the petitioners as alleged by the complainant in her
\ncomplaint dated 21.10.2002 amounts to misappropriation as defined under Section
\n405 IPC and\/or cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.
\n1.
\nSanjiv (Petitioner no.1)
\ni. On the day of marriage, he had beaten and taunted complainant.
\nii. Harassed complainant at matrimonial house in India.
\niii. Harassed complainant at house in U.S.A.
\niv. Demand of a flat in Delhi.
\nv. Harassed complainant at house in U.S.A. followed by demand of Rs.40 lakhs.
\nvi. Harassed complainant to such an extent that complainant attempted suicide.
\nvii Demand of plot.
\nviii Demand of money for construction of plot.
\ni. The allegations against him prima facie disclose an offence under Explanation (a) and (b) to Section 498-A.
\nii. Allegations attract Explanation (a) for the reason it has been alleged that harassment was to such an extent which compelled the complainant to commit suicide and Explanation (b) for the reason that both the ingredients thereof i.e. demand and harassment are present.
\niii. No case under Section 406 IPC is made out for the reason there are no allegations of entrustment of any dowry article to him.
\n2.
\nNand Kishore, father-in-law (Petitioner no.2)
\ni. On the day of marriage, he had beaten and harassed complainant for bringing less dowry and showing disrespect towards jethanis.
\nii. Demand of plot
\ni. Cruelty as alleged against the petitioner do not falls within the scope of either explanation (a) or (b)
\nii. Though there are allegations of harassment, same are not having a reasonable nexus with demand of dowry. The said demand of plot was not followed by any harassment on part of the petitioner.
\niii. No case under Section 406 IPC is made out for the reason there are no allegations of entrustment of any dowry article to him.
\n3.
\nSushila Devi, mother-in-law (Petitioner no.3)
\ni. On the day of marriage, she had beaten and harassed complainant for bringing less dowry and showing disrespect towards jethanis.
\nii. Demand of plot.
\ni. Cruelty as alleged against the petitioner do not falls within the scope of either explanation (a) or (b)
\nii. Though there are allegations of harassment, same are not having a reasonable nexus with demand for dowry.The said demand of plot was not followed by any harassment on part of the petitioner.
\niii. No case under Section 406 IPC is made out for the reason there are no allegations of entrustment of any dowry article to her.
\n4.
\nSatish,jeth (Petitioner no. 4)
\ni. Harassed complainant to such an extent that the complainant attempted suicide.
\nii. Harassed complainant at the time when the complainant came to her matrimonial house to collect her istridhan.
\ni. Allegations prima facie attract Explanation (a) to Section 498-A.
\nii. Allegations attract Explanation (a) for the reason it has been alleged that harassment was to such an extent which compelled the complainant to commit suicide.
\niii. No case under Section 406 IPC is made out for the reason there are no allegations of entrustment of any dowry article to him.
\n5.
\nRajni, jethani (Petitioner no. 5)
\ni. On the day of marriage, she had beaten and harassed complainant for bringing less dowry.
\nii. Harassed complainant at the time when the complainant came to her matrimonial house to collect her istridhan.
\ni. Cruelty as alleged against the petitioner do not falls within the scope of either explanation (a) or (b) to Section 498-A IPC.
\nii. Though there are allegations of harassment, same are not having a reasonable nexus with demand for dowry.
\niii. No case under Section 406 IPC is made out for the reason there are no allegations of entrustment of any dowry article to her.
\n6.
\nSunil, jeth (Petitioner no.6)
\ni. Harassed complainant at the time when the complainant came to her matrimonial house to collect her istridhan.
\ni. There are no allegations of cruelty\/harassment against the petitioner.
\nii. No case under Section 406 IPC is made out for the reason there are no allegations of entrustment of any dowry article to him.
\n7.
\nShalini, jethani
\ni. On the day of marriage, she had beaten and harassed complainant for bringing less dowry.
\nii. Harassed complainant at the time when the complainant came to her matrimonial house to collect her istridhan.
\ni. Cruelty as alleged against the petitioner do not falls within the scope of either explanation (a) or (b)
\nii. Though there are allegations of harassment, same are not having a reasonable nexus with demand for dowry.
\niii. No case under Section 406 IPC is made out for the reason there are no allegations of entrustment of any dowry article to her.
\n8.
\nRajiv, jeth (Petitioner no.8)
\ni. Harassed complainant at the house in U.S.A.
\nii. Demand of Rs.40 lakhs followed by beating.
\ni. Allegations prima facie attract Explanation (b) to Section 498-A.
\nii. Allegations attract Explanation (b) for the reason that both the ingredients thereof
\ni.e. demand and harassment are present.
\nIii. No case under Section 406 IPC is made out for the reason there are no allegations of entrustment of any dowry article to him.
\n9.
\nPreeti, jethani (Petitioner no.9)
\ni. On the day of marriage, she had beaten and harassed complainant for bringing less dowry.
\nii. Harassed complainant at the house in U.S.A.
\niii. Demand of Rs.40 lakhs followed by beating.
\ni. Allegations prima facie attract Explanation (b) to Section 498-A.
\nii. Allegations attract Explanation (b) for the reason that both the ingredients thereof
\ni.e. demand and harassment are present.
\niii. No case under Section 406 IPC is made out for the reason there are no allegations of entrustment of any dowry article to her.<\/p>\n

26. In the decision reported as Ramesh & Ors v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2005 SC
\n1989, the Supreme Court considered a complaint filed by the wife against her
\nhusband, her in-laws and husband’s brother and sister under Sections 498-A and 406
\nIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After sifting through the
\nallegations in the complaint, the Supreme Court quashed the complaint qua the sister
\nand observed as under :-
\n\u201cBefore we proceed to deal with the two contentions relating to limitation and
\nterritorial jurisdiction, we would like to consider first the contention advanced on
\nbehalf of the appellant-Gowri Ramaswamy. Looking at the allegations in the F.I.R.
\nand the contents of charge-sheet, we hold that none of the alleged offences, viz.,
\nSections 498-A, 406 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are
\nmade out against her. She is the married sister of the informant’s husband who is
\nundisputedly living in Delhi with her family. Assuming that during the relevant time,
\ni.e., between March and October, 1997, when the 6th respondent (informant) lived in
\nMumbai in her marital home, the said lady stayed with them for some days, there is
\nnothing in the complaint which connects her with an offence under Section 498-A or
\nany other offence of which cognizance was taken. Certain acts of taunting and illtreatment
\nof informant by her sister-in-law (appellant) were alleged but they do not
\npertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonging
\nto the informant. What was said against her in the F.I.R. is that on some occasions,
\nshe directed the complainant to wash W.C. and she used to abuse her and used to
\npass remarks such as “even if you have got much jewellery, you are our slave.” It is
\nfurther stated in the report that Gowri would make wrong imputations to provoke her
\nhusband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family. These
\nallegations, even if true, do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing the
\ninformant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable
\nsecurity. At the most, the allegations reveal that her sister-in-law Gowri was insulting
\nand making derogatory remarks against her and behaving rudely against her. Even
\nacts of abetment in connection with unlawful demand for property\/dowry are not
\nalleged against her. The bald allegations made against her sister-in-law seem to
\nsuggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relations as
\npossible. Neither the F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis to the
\nMagistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant Gowri
\nRamaswamy. The High Court ought not to have relegated her to the ordeal of trial.
\nAccordingly, the proceedings against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy are hereby
\nquashed and her appeal stands allowed.\u201d<\/p>\n

27. In view of the above discussion, it can be said that the allegations made in the
\npresent complaint do not prima facie constitute an offence under Sections 498-A
\nIPC against petitioners nos 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Noting the fact that no specific
\nallegations of entrustment of istridhan has been made in the present complaint, I hold
\nthat no offence under section 406 IPC has been made out against the present
\npetitioners.<\/p>\n

28. It is settled law that a complaint\/FIR can be quashed when allegations made in
\nthe complaint\/FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
\nagainst the accused. (See the judgment of the Supreme Court in the decision reported
\nas State of Haryana & Ors v Bhajan Lal & Ors JT 1990 (4) SC 650).<\/p>\n

29. Accordingly, qua the petitioners nos. 2, 3,5, 6 and 7, the aforesaid FIR and
\nproceedings emanating therefrom under section 498-A IPC is ordered to be quashed.
\nIn so far as Section 406 IPC is concerned, aforesaid FIR and proceedings emanating
\ntherefrom is quashed against all the petitioners.<\/p>\n

30. Petition is partly allowed in terms of para 29 above.<\/p>\n

31. No costs.<\/p>\n

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE Crl.M.C. No.2645-53\/2005 RESERVED ON : 4.10.2007 DATE OF DECISION: 12.10.2007 Sanjeev…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[2919,1390,13714,13715,3801,13718,2053,570,13712,13717,13713,13720,12714,2913,13716,13719],"class_list":["post-2043","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-498a-quash","tag-indian-penal-code","tag-mr-r-m-sinha","tag-mr-sanjay-khanna","tag-mr-jaideep-malik","tag-nand-kishore-aggarwal","tag-pradeep-nandrajog","tag-quash","tag-quash-498a","tag-sanjeev-aggarwal","tag-sanjeev-kumar-aggarwal","tag-satish-aggarwal","tag-section-406","tag-sections-498-a","tag-sunita-aggarwal","tag-sushila-devi-aggarwal"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2043","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2043"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2043\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}