In a petition filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking to set aside and quash a case along with a summoning order dated 01-06-2018 and notice of accusation dated 03-09-2022 by the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Court No. VII, Shimla, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings, summoning order, and the notice of accusation.
The wife (respondent/complainant) of the petitioner/accused filed a complaint under Section 190 of CrPC for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), alleging that the husband had misappropriated and retained the stridhan of the wife. The husband allegedly complained about insufficient dowry, and the wife was constrained to take shelter at her parental home. The wife instituted a case for maintenance and nine years ago, the husband obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce before getting remarried. The wife averred that her stridhan was still in possession of the husband and that he had been threatening her. She mentioned that she had made requests for its return since 2011 and that a legal notice was also served. The JMFC summoned the husband on 01-06-2018, and a notice of accusation was put to him on 03-09-2022.
The husband contended that the complaint was an outcome of mala fides and that the complainant had concealed the decree of divorce granted to the husband, that she had been held not entitled to maintenance with effect from 21-09-2016, and that her civil suit for maintenance had been dismissed on 13-05-2022.
ALSO READ: CESTAT Upholds Royal Enfield’s Right to Use Service Station Input Service Credit to Pay Excise Duty
The Court noted that on 05-12-2011, an application under Section 24, seeking ad interim maintenance was allowed, in addition to the maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC and that the Section 125 proceedings came to be disposed of on 21-09-2016. It was found that no claim for stridhan had been made in the petition under Section 13, in the application under Section 24, in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC., or in the civil suit for maintenance.
The Court stated that for offences under Sections 406 and 506 IPC, the limitation for taking cognizance under Section 468 Cr.P.C. was three years as it was well settled that if an accused is charged with two or more offences, the limitation is to be reckoned based on the major offence. It was said that there was no dispute that a wife can not only file a suit for recovery of stridhan, but she may also file a criminal complaint from criminal breach of trust and that it would be a continuing offence. However, noting the distinction carved out by the Supreme Court in Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury & Anr. 2016 2 SCC 705, the Court stated that if the status between the parties has been severed, it may not be a continuing offence.
It was said that even if the wife had forgotten to lay claim to the stridhan either while filinf a petition under Section 13 of HMA or filing a suit for maintenance under Section 528 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, she could have done so within the prescribed period of limitation. The Court held that, since the relationship had been severed with effect from 09-10-2012, the offence was not a continuing offence. Hence, the petition was allowed and the proceedings including the summoning order as well as the notice of accusation were quashed and set aside. Thus, the petition was disposed of.
