SMT. RASHMI KUMAR versus MARESH KUMAR BHADA

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 18-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. RASHMI KUMAR 
v. 
MARESH KUMAR BHADA 
DECEMBER 18, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR AND 
G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Hindu law: 
A 
B 
"Stridhana''-Meaning and nature of-Held : Wife absolute owner of C 
stridhana property-Not a joint property of wife and husband. 
Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 405 and 406. 
"Stridhana" property-Entrustment of-To husband or other member of 
family-Dishonest misappropriation or conversion-To own use-Of that D 
property by husband or other member--Held: By itself amounted to criminal 
breach of trust-No further agreement that such property was given to husband 
or other member off amily need be established-Wlten wife left matrimonial 
home or driven therefrom proof of entrustment of stridhana property 
depended, upon circumstances of each case-In the circumstances of the case, 
prim a f acie entrustment was made out by wife as stridhana properties not E 
returned by her husband. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 200. 
Cognizance of offence-Taking of-Held : Court must consider only 
avennents made in complaint or charge-sheet-Not open for court to sift and F 
appreciate evidence at that stage. 
Sections 468 and 472--Limitation--Offence under S.406 IPC-Aver-
ment in complaint-That complaint demanded from accused return of her 
stridhana properties on 5-12-1987-Accused did not return said stridhana G 
prope1ties--Complaint filed on 10-9-199(}--Held : Complaint was not time 
barred-In view of this finding question whether it was a continuing offence 
not decided. 
Section 482--C1imi11al Proceedings--Quashing of-Power of High 
Court-Held : Should be sparingly and cautiously exercised to prevent mis-
H 
347 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A carriage of justice or when it would tantamount to abuse of process of 
court-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226. 
B 
Words and Phrases : 
"St1idhana"-Meaning of-In the context of Hindu Law. 
''Entrustment''-Meaning of-lnthe context of S.405 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860. 
The appellant was married to the respondent according to the Hindu 
C rites and rituals and had three children from the wedlock. The appellant-
wife was given jewellery, i.e., gold and silver ornaments and other 
household goods and also cash by the appellant's parents, brothers and 
other relatives at different ceremonies prior to the appellant's marriage 
and after the marriage at the time of bidai (farewell). The appellant- wife 
had entrusted all her stridhana properties and household goods to the 
D respondent-husband for safe custody. The appellant was treated with 
cruelty in the matrimonial home and ultimately the appellant and the 
children were thrown out from the matrimonial home without getting an 
opportunity to take with her stridhana properties and household goods. 
The appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu 
E Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, the appellant 
requested the respondent-husband to restitute the appellant into the con-
jugal society along with the children. The respondent promised to do so 
provided the appellant withdrew the application for restitution of conjugal 
rights, which the appellant .did. Even after withdrawing the application the 
F respondent did not take the appellant into the conjugal society. The 
appellant then made a demand for return of the stridhana properties 
during October 1986 but the respondent refused to do so. The appellant 
made a demand on 5-12-1987 to return her stridhana properties 
but the respondent refused to do so. Consequently, the appellant filed a 
G private complaint on 10- 9-1990 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860. 
After recording the statement of the appellant the Magistrate took 
cognizance of the offence under Section 200 of the Code. In the meanwhile 
the respondent filed an application under Section 482 of the Code in the 
H High Court to quash the proceedings. The High Court quashed the 
RASHMI KR. v. M.K. BHADA 
349 
proceedings on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Hence this A 
appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the offence under 
Section 406 IPC was a continuing offence and hence cause of action arose 
every day subsequent to the refusal and, therefore, the complaint was not 
barred by limitation. 
B 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that a clear demand 
for return of stridhana properties was made in October 1986 when the 
respondent had refused to return the same; that the c

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