HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3368 / 2011
Mansingh, S/o Santoshi, by caste Jat, R/o E-41, Ranjeet Nagar,
Bharatpur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
2. Devi Prasad, S/o Lal Singh,
3. Omwati, W/o Devi Prasad,
Both by caste Jat, R/o Village Pasta, Presently R/o Nagar Road,
Opp. Hanuman Temple, Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur.
—-Respondents

__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma
For State : Mr. R.R. Gurjar-P.P.

For Respondents No. 2 and 3 : Mr. Kartar Singh Faujdar
__
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
28/08/2017

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 23.06.2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

year 2004 engagement ceremony of the son of the petitioner was

performed with the daughter of respondents No. 2 and 3.

Thereafter, marriage of the son of the petitioner could not be

performed with the daughter of respondents No. 2 and 3.

However, articles including gold jewellery given by the petitioner

to the daughter of respondents No. 2 and 3 had not been

returned. Hence, offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code,

1860 was duly made out against respondents No. 2 and 3.

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has

submitted that infact all the gifts, which had been given by the

petitioner to the daughter of respondents No. 2 and 3 had been

returned to the mediator, after the engagement was broken.

In the present case, after thorough investigation of the case,

negative final report was submitted by the Investigating Agency.

However, trial Court vide order dated 13.01.2011 took cognizance

of the offence on a protest petition filed by the petitioner. Court of

revision vide impugned order dated 23.06.2011 allowed the

revision petition filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 and set aside

the order passed by the trial Court.

In the present case, engagement of the son of the petitioner

was performed with the daughter of respondents No. 2 and 3.

However, at a later stage, marriage of the son of the petitioner

was not performed with daughter of respondents No. 2 and 3. The

dispute between the parties can be said to be purely civil in nature

as the petitioner can file suit for recovery of the articles in

question. However, no criminal offence can be said to have been

committed by the respondents No. 2 and 3.

Section 405 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read as under:-

“Criminal breach of trust.–Whoever, being

in any manner entrusted with property, or with any

dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates

or converts to his own use that property, or

dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in

violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode
(3 of 3)

in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal

contract, express or implied, which he has made

touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully

suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal

breach of trust”. ”

The alleged offence in the present case does not fall within

the definition of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section

405 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) J.

Sudha/110