PRATIBHA RANI versus SURAJ KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 12-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PRATIBHA RANI 
v 
SURAJ KUMAR & ANR. 
March 12, 1985 
(S.M. FAZAL ALT, A VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.J 
Nature, character and conc<nnitants of stridhan-Right of exclusive owner-
ship over the stridhan during ciJverture-Whether the dowry/Jtridhan given to a 
wife and her exclusive property becomes a joint property/partnership property 
by a fiction of being placed in the custody of her husband and her relation1, the 
moment a 1narried woman enters her malrimonial home-Indian ParJnership Act, 
1932, section 4. Dowry Prohibition Act (28of1961) sections 2 /{indu Marriage 
Act, 1955 section 27 Hindu Succession Act Section 14 Indian Penal Code, sections 
405, 406 and 482. 
Remedies open under law-Whether cri1ninal remedy is barred when civil 
re1nedy is available sitnf!ltaneous/y. 
Entrustment-Charge of Criminal breach of trust by wife against her 
husband and his cloJe relations maintainability-Essential ingredients of an 
offence section 405/406 Indian _Penal Code. 
Inherent powers of the High Court to quash a First Tnforn1ation Report on 
I 
B 
c 
D 
a co1np/aint under section 482 of the Code o/Cri111inal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 
E 
1974), explained. 
The appellant Pratibha Rani. the estranged wife of the first respondent 
Suraj Kumar, filed a cri1ninal complaint against her husband, his father, his 
three brothers and a brother-in-law ilJ the c·ourt of the Additional Chief 
Judicial Magistrate, Lridhiana, alleging; (j) that she was married to the first 
respondent at Ludhiana on 4. 2. 1972 according to Hindu rites and customs ; 
(ii) that the aforesaid persons, namely, father, brothers and bro.ther-in-law of 
the first respondent attended the marriage and demanded dowry from the 
appellants• parents as consideration for the marriage ; (iii) that the dowry 
articles mentioned in the list worth Rs. 60,000 in the form of gold -ornaments, 
clothes and other valuables were given and _entrusted to the respondents and 
four others at Ludhiana- at the time of 'doli' on 5. 2. 1972 in the presence of 
Kapur Chand Jain and six others; (iv) that all the six respondents, from the time 
of marriage started teasing, harassing and beating her and they kept her:with-
out even food to extract more money from her parents; (v) that they turned out 
the appellant with her children in the beginning of 1977 (vi) that after a great 
deal of persuasion and intervention by Pancbayatdars, respondent No. 1 came 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985] 3 S.C.R. 
to Ludhiana and took her to his house, after giving an undertaking in writing 
on 21. 6. 1977 not to misbehave witli and not to maltreat the appellant and 
her children ; (vii) that after some time all the respondents in the complaint 
not only started again maltreating the appellant and misbehaving with her, but 
also brought the appellant at 4.30 a.rn. on 11.12.80 and left her near Kailash 
Cinema Chowk ; (viii) that the articles (the stridhana) mentioned in the list 
appended to the complaint were never given by the respondents to the appellant 
for her use but were retained by them illegally and with the dishonest intention 
of causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the appellant ; (ix) 
that when the appellants' husband and his brother, Vishwinder Kumar, respon-
dent 1 and 5 in the complaint, came to Ludhiana on 10.2.81 to attend the pro-
ceed!ngs started by the appellant under section 125 Criminal Penal Code her 
parents persuaded them to return the articles entrusted to the1n at the time of 
the marriage but they flatly refused to comply with that demand ; (x) that the 
articles have not been returned in spite of service or notice dated 17.12.81 on the 
first respondent; (xi)- that the respondents in the complaint have dishonestly, 
thus, converted the articles belonging to the appe11ant for their use in violation 
of the instructions of the appc11ants' parents given at the time of the marriage 
to give the articles for the appellants' use and that (xii) they individually and 
jointly commiUed the offences under sections 405 and 406 Indian Penal Code. 
Thereupon respondent No. 1 filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 4876 
of 1981 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court under section 482 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings and the complaint 
taken on file by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana under 
section 406 JPC and his order summoning them. A Learned Single Judge of 
the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.