Topic: Pratibha Rani vs Suraj Kumar - Streedhan

Equivalent Citations: 1985 AIR 628, 1985 SCR (3) 191 - Citation:  1985 AIR  628- 1985 SCR  (3) 191-  1985 SCC  (2) 370      1985 SCALE  (1)458 -  Citator  Info :  Rf 1986 Sc 833(50) -  Rf 1992 Sc 604 (103) - Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza, Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J), Varadarajan, A. (J) - Supreme Court Of India - Date Of Judgment12/03/1985

ACT: Nature, character and concomitants of stridhan-Right of exclusive ownership over the stridhan during coverture- Whether the dowry/stridhan 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 relations, the moment a married woman enters her matrimonial home-Indian Partnership Act, 1932, section 4. Dowry Prohibition Act (28 of 1961) sections 2 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 section 27 Hindu Succession Act Section 14 Indian Penal Code, sections 405, 406 and 482. Remedies open under law-Whether criminal remedy is barred when civil remedy is available simultaneously. Entrustment-Charge Or Criminal breach of trust by wife against her husband and his close relations maintainability- Essential ingredients of an offence section 405/406 Indian Penal Code. Inherent powers of the High Court to quash a First Information Report on a complaint under section 482' the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 11 of 1974), explained.


HEADNOTE:
     The appellant  Pratibha Rani, the estranged wife of the
first respondent  Suraj Kumar,    filed a     criminal  complaint
against her  husband, his  father, his    three brothers and a
brother-in-law in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ludhiana,  alleging; (i) 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  brother-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
without even  food to  extract more  money from her parents;
(v) that  they turned out the appellant with her children in
the beginnings    of 1977     (vi) that  after a  great  deal  of
persuasion and intervention by Panchayatdars, respondent No.
I came to Ludhiana  and took  her to  his house,  after  giving  an
undertaking in    writing on 21. 6. 1977 not to misbehave with
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.m. 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 y  (ix) that    when the appellants' husband and his
brother,  Vishwinder  Kumar,  respondent  1  and  5  in     the
complaint, came     to  Ludhiana  on  10  2.81  to     attend     the
proceedings started  by     the  appellant     under    section     125
Criminal Penal Code her parents persuaded them to return the
articles entrusted  to them  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  of
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 appellant for their
use in    violation of  the instructions    of  the     appellants'
parents given  at the  time of    the  marriage  to  give     the
articles  for  the  appellants'     use  and  that     (xii)    they
individually  and   jointly  committed    the  offences  under
sections 405 and 406 Indian Penal Code.<br><br>
     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  IPC  and  his  order  summoning
them.A Learned    Single    Judge  of  the    High  Court  relying
strongly upon  the observations made by a Full Bench of that
High Court  in Vinod Kumar Sethi & Ors. v. State of Punjab &
Ors. reported  in AIR  1982 Punjab  372 allowed the petition
and quashed  the proceedings  arising out of the appellants'
complaint, observing that the allegations in the appellants'
complaint are similar to the one in that case and therefore,
fully covered  by the  ratio in     that  decision.  Hence     the
appeal by special leave.
     Allowing the appeal, the Court,
^
     HELD; (Per     E.lzal Ali,  J.) (on  behalf of  Sabyasachi
Mukharji, J. and himself)
     1.1 The  stridhan property     of a  married woman  cannot
acquire the  character of  a  joint  property  of  both     the
spouses as  soon as she enters her matrimonial home so as to
eliminate the  application of  section 406 IPC. The position
of stridhan  of a  Hindu  married  woman's  property  during
coverture is  absolutely clear    and unambiguous;  she is the
absolute owner    of such property and can deal with it in any
manner she  likes-She may  spend the  whole of it or give it
away at     her own  pleasure  by    gift  or  will    without     any
reference to  her husband. The entrustment to the husband of
the stridhan  property is just like something which the wife
keeps in  a bank  and can  withdraw any amount when ever she
likes  without    any  hitch  or    hindrance.  Ordinarily,     the
husband has  no right  or  interest  in     it  with  the    sole
exception that in times of extreme distress, as
193
in famine,  illness or    the like, the husband can utilize it
but he    is morally  bound to restore it or its value when he
is able     to do    so. This  right is  purely personal  to     the
husband and  the property  so received    by him    in  marriage
cannot be  proceeded against  even in  execution of a decree
for debt. [206F; 201D-E]
     Suraj Kumar  & Anr.  v. Pratibha  Rani, Criminal  Misc.
Petition No.  4876 of  1981  Punjab  &    Haryana     High  Court
reversed.
     Vinod Kumar  Sethi & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. AIR
1982 Punjab  372; Surinder  Mohan v.  Smt Kiran     Saini, 1977
Chandigarh  Law      Reporter  212;  Kailash  Vati     v.  Ayodhya
Parkash, ILR (1977) 1 Punjab & Haryana 642 (FB) overruled.
     1.2 A  perusal of the allegations made in the complaint
undoubtedly makes  out a positive case of the accused having
dishonestly misappropriated  the articles handed over to the
n  in    a  fiduciary   capacity.  To  characterise  such  an
entrustment as    a joint     custody or  property given  to     the
husband and  the parents  is wholly unintelligible.A perusal
of the    list reveals  that  so    far  as     the  jewellery     and
clothes, blouses,  nighties and     gowns    are  concerned    they
could be  used only by the wife and were her stridhan. By no
stretch of  imagination could it be said that the [ornaments
and sarees  and other articles mentioned above could also be
used by     the husband.  If, therefore,  despite demands these
articles were  refused to  be returned    to the    wife by     the
husband and  his parents,  it  amounted     to  an     offence  of
criminal breach     of trust. All the ingredients of an offence
under section  405 IPC    were pleaded  and a prima facie case
for  summoning     the  accused    was  made   out.   In    such
circumstances, the  complaint  should  have  been  given  an
opportunity by    the High Court to prove her case rather than
quashing the  complaint. Such an exercise of jurisdiction by
the  High   Court  under  section  482    Cr.  P.     is  totally
unwarranted by law. [203A; 204B-D; 203B-C]
     2.1  Criminal   law  and    matrimonial  home   are     not
strangers. Crimes  committed in matrimonial home are as much
punishable as  anywhere else. The mere factum of the husband
and wife  living together does not entitle either of them to
commit a  breach of criminal law and if one does then he/she
will be     liable for  all the consequences of such breach. In
the case  of stridhan  properly also,  the  title  of  which
always remains    with the  wife though possession of the same
may sometimes  be with    the husband  or other members of his
family, if  the husband     or any     other member  of his family
commits such  an offence,  they will be liable to punishment
for the     offence of  criminal breach of trust under sections
405 and 406 IPC. Just as a newly married woman living in the
same house  and under  the same     roof cannot  be expected to
keep her  personal property  or belongings  like  jewellery,
clothing, etc.    under her  own lock  and key  thus showing a
spirit of  distrust to    the husband  at the  very behest,  a
husband cannot be permitted to cast his covetous eyes on the
absolute and personal property of his wife merely because it
is kept     in his     custody, thereby  reducing the custody to a
legal farce.  On  the  other  hand,  even  if  the  personal
property of  the wife  is jointly kept it would be deemed to
be expressly or impleedly kept in the custody of the husband
and i f he dishonestly misappropriates or refuses
194
to return  the same,  he is  certainly    guilty    of  criminal
breach of  trust, and there can be no escape from this legal
consequence. [207E-G; 208B-Cl
     2.2 It  is an  anathema to     suppose that  when a  civil
remedy is  available, a     criminal prosecution  is completely
barred. The  two remedies-are  under civil law and the other
under  criminal      law  are   not  mutually   exclusive     but
coextensive   and essentially  differ in  their content     and
consequences. Therefore,  it cannot  be said  that,  if     the
husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property of
his wife  though kept  in his  custody, that  would not     par
prosecution under  section 406 IPC or render the ingredients
of section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that because
the stridhan  of a  married woman  is kept in the custody of
her husband no action against him can be taken as no offence
is   committed is to override and distort the real intent of
law. [208E-F]
     3.1 Neither  section 27  of the  Hindu Marriage Act nor
section 14  of the Hindu Succession Act, go to the extent of
providing that the claim of a woman on the basis of stridhan
is completely abolished, or that a remedy under the criminal
law for     breach of  trust is  taken away.  All that  the two
sections, provide  is that  if the husband refuses to return
the stridhan  property of  his    wife, it will be open to the
wife to     recover the  same by  a properly  constituted suit.
[204G-H; 205A]
     3.2  Section  27  of  the    Hindu  Marriage     Act  merely
provides for-  an alternate  remedy and     does not  touch  or
affect in  any way  the criminal liability of the husband in
case it     is proved  that he  has dishonestly misappropriated
the stridhan  of his  wife. It cannot also be spelt out from
any textbook  or the   sastric    law of the Hindus that these
two Acts take away the stridhan right of a woman-at the most
these Acts merely modify the concept of stridhan.
                            [205C-D]
     Bhai Sher Jang Singh & Anr. v. Smt. Virinder Kaur, 1979
Criminal Law Journal 493 approved.
     Surinder Mohan v. Smt. Kiran Saini, 1977 Chandigarh Law
Reporter 212 over ruled.
     4.1 It  is neither     appropriate nor  apposite to import
the concept  of partner     ship of  husband and  wife for     the
simple reason  that the     concept of  partnership is entirely
different from that of the husbands' keeping the stridhan in
his custody.  From the    definition  of    the  partnership  in
section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, it is manifest that
in a  partnership the  wife must  by some clear and specific
act indicate  that the    stridhan which has been entrusted to
the husband is to be used for a partnership business and the
losses of  the firm,  if any,  would have  to be  shared  by
both.A pure and simple act of entrustment of the stridhan to
the  husband   does  not   attract  any      of  the  essential
ingredients of    a partnership  as defined in the Partnership
Act. When  the essential  conditions of a partnership do not
exist. the  mere factum of entrustment of stridhan would not
constitute any    co-ownership or     legal partnership, There is
also no
195
question of  the wife,    constituting herself  a partner with
her husband  merely by    allowing him  to keep the article or
money in  his custody.    Further, in  this  case,  there     is,
neither any  pleading nor  any    allegation  that  after     her
marriage, the  appellant transferred  all her  properties to
her husband  for  carrying  on    a  partnership    business  in
accordance with     the  provisions  of  the  Partnership    Act.
Therefore, a  criminal prosecution  under section 406 IPC is
maintainable.
                   [209E; 210B-C; G; 211C-D]
     Vinod Kumar  Sethi & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. AIR
1982 Punjab  372; Surinder  Mohan etc.    V. Smt. Kiran Saini,
1977 Chandigarh     Law Reporter  212; Kailash  Vati v. Ayodhya
Parkash, ILR  (1973) 1 Punjab & Haryana, P 612; Kailash Nath
Agarwal &  Ors. v.  Prem Pal  Agarwal & Anr. Crl. Misc. case
No. 676     of 1981  connected with Crl. Misc. case No. 2753 of
1981 decided on 22.12.83 Allahabad High Court overruled.
     In the  instant case,  however, there  is    neither     any
allegation nor    anything in  the complaint to show that when
the wife  entered her  matrimonial home     she  had  entrusted
property to  her husband so as to make him part owner of the
same. Therefore, the question Or the husband having dominion
over the  property does     not at     all arise. In fact the wife
has nothing  to do  With the  partnership, if  any  and     the
husband is  a pure  and simple custodian of the property and
cannot use  the Same  for any  purposed without her consent.
[210E-F]
     The concept  of stridhan  property of  a married  woman
becoming joint    property of  both the spouses as soon as she
enters her matrimonial home and continues to be so until she
remains there or even if there is a break in the matrimonial
alliance,  is  in  direct  contravention  of  Hindu  law  of
Sadayika which    has been  administered    since  more  than  a
century by  High Court,     Privy Council    and also the Supreme
Court. [212C-D]
     4.2 The Full Bench decision in Vinod Kumar's case would
not  only   render  the      provisions  of   section  406     IPC
inapplicable and  nugatory  even  if  the  husband  has     the
audacity or  the  importunity  of  refusing  to     return     the
stridhan of his wife, but also be in direct contravention of
a  long      course  of  decisions     of  Supreme  Court  on     the
ingredients of section 405 IPC. [212A-B]
     By     a   pure  and     simple     figment   of  the   fertile
imaginations, the  Judges in  the Vinod Kamat's case seem to
have rewritten the law of criminal breach of trust contained
in sections  405 and 406 IPC so as to carve out an imaginary
exception to  the application of the Penal Code- more tragic
consequence of the view taken by the High Court is that even
if there is a break in the matrimonial alliance and the wife
wants her  husband to  return her  exclusive property and he
refuses lo  return even     then the  provisions of section 406
IPC would  not apply.  It is  an extreme travesty of justice
for a  court to     say that  whenever a  married    demands     her
stridhan property  from her  husband she should be driven to
the dilatory  process of a civil court and her husband would
be debarred  from being prosecuted by a criminal court. By a
strange and ingenious process of holding that such an act of
a husband does not attract the provisions of the
196
Penal Code, as the property being joint there is no question
of the    husband being  a trustee  or holding  the same    in a
fiduciary capacity.  Such a  view is  not only contradictory
but-what the  High  Court  has    said  before  regarding     the
applicability of  section 27  of the  Hindu Marriage Act and
the nature  of stridhan-is  also neither  in consonance with
logic and  reason nor  with the     express provisions  of     the
Penal Code  and seems  to be  inspired by  a spirit  of male
chauvinism so  as  to  exclude    the  husband  from  criminal
liability merely because his wife has refused to live in her
matrimonial home. The High Court, functioning in a civilised
and socialistic     society such  as ours    cannot play  such  a
havoc with judicial interpretation of an important branch of
law. The  High Court  cannot make  a complete  volte-face by
holding that  these very  properties after  marriage  become
joint property    of both     the spouses. The High Court has not
realised that  the theory  or philosophy of matrimonial home
propounded   by it  stands directly  contradicted by its own
observations.
                     [212D-H; 213A; H; 214A]
     4.3 The  fundamental core    of the    offence of  criminal
breach of trust is that a property must be entrusted and the
dominion of  the property should be given to the trustee. In
the present  case, all    these conditions,  even according to
the findings  of the  High Court  though not its conclusions
are clearly established.
                              [217C]
     Chelloor Manaklal    Narayan Ittiravi  Nambudiri v. State
of Travancore; AIR 1953 SC478; Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v.
State of  Bombay,  [1956]  SCR    483;  State  of     Gujarat  v.
Jaswantlal Nathalal  [1968] 2 SCR 408; Sushil Kumar Gupta v.
Joy Shankar  Bhattacharjee, AIR 1971 SC 1543; Superintendent
JUDGMENT:
[4] SCC 230 referred to.

Harihar Prasad Dubey v- Tulsi Das Mundhra & Ors. AIR 1949 Calcutta 207; Akharbhai Nasarali v. Md. Hussain Bhai AIR 1961 MP 37; Basudeb Patra v. Kana. Lal Haldar, AIR 1949 Calcutta 207, Bhai Sher Jang Singh and Anr. v. Smt. Virinder Kaur, 1979 Crl. L-J. 493; Avtar Singh and Anr v. Kirpal Kaur, Crl. Misc. No. 2144 of 1979 and Cr l Misc. No. 2145 of 1979 approved.

Vinod Kumar Sethi & Ors. v- State of Punjab and Anr. ATR 1982 Punjab 372; Surinder Mohan etc. v. Smt. Kiran Saini,    1977 Chandigarh Law Reporter    212; Kailash    Nath Agarwal & Ors- v. Prem Pal Agarwal & Anr. Crl. Misc. Case No. 676    of 1981 connected with Crl. Misc. case No. 2753 of 1981, Allahabad High Court: Kailash Vati v. Ayodhya Parkash, ILR (1977) 1 Punjab d: Haryana 642 overruled.

5. For the purpose of exercising its    power under section 482 Cr. PC to quash a First Information Report or a complaint the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying    the same per se.    It has no jurisdiction to    examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. In case    no offence is committed on    the allegation and    the ingredients    of section 405 and 406 IPC are not    made out, the High Court would be justified in quashing the    proceedings. In the    -present case,    the allegations are both clear, specific and unambiguous and therefore, the    complaint should have been given a chance to prove her case.    It is, of course open to the accused at the trial to take whatever defences that were open to him or her but that stage had not yet come and    therefore, the    High Court was totally ill-advised to speculate on the merits of the case at that stage and quash the proceedings. Since all the facts stated in the complaint constituted an offence under section 406 IPC,    the appellant    cannot be denied the right to prove her case at the trial by pre-empting it the very behest by the order passed by the High Court. [223D-H; 224D-E-] Vinod Kumar Sethi & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr, AIR 1982 Punjab 372, over-led.

L.V. Jadhav v. Shakarrao Abasaheb Pawar & Ors. AIR 1983 SC 1219; Smt. Nagawa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & ors. [1976] Supp. SCR 123 applied.

OBSERVATION (It is surprising to find that so deeply drowned and inherently engrossed are some    of the    High Courts in    the concept of matrimonial home qua the stridhan property- of a married woman that they simply refuse to believe that such properties are    meant for the exclusive use of the wife and could also be legally    entrusted to the husband or    his relations. Thus, if    the husband    or his relations misappropriate the same and refuse to    hand it over to the wife and convert them to their own use and even though these facts arc clearly alleged in a complaint for    an offence under section 405/406 IPC, some courts take the view that the complaint is not maintainable. Thus even when clear and specific allegations are made    in the    complaint that    such properties were    entrusted to the husband, they refuse to believe these hard facts and brush them aside on the ground that they are vague, and completely shut their eyes to the fact that the husband    could also be guilty under section 405/406 IPC in view of the clear allegations    made in the complaint. In other words, the High Courts simply refuse to believe that there can    be any such entrustment and even if it is so, no offence is committed. Such an approach amounts to a serious distortion of the criminal law, resulting in perpetrating grave and substantial miscarriage of justice to the wife at the hands of the High Courts. The Supreme Court cannot continuance such a wrong and    perverse approach.) [224G-H, 225A-C] Per A. Varadarajan, J. (dissenting) 1.1 In the absence of a separate agreement and specific entrustment by    the wife to the husband and or his relations and vice versa of the property of the husband to the wife and or    her relation, it would    not be    possible to draw an inference of entrustment of custody or dominion over    the property of one spouse to the other and    his or    her relations so as to attract the stringent provisions of section 406 IPC. The offence of criminal break of trust is cognizable and non-bailable and punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years or with fine or with both. In the absence    of such a    separate agreement for specific entrustment of the property of either spouse the appropriate remedy would appear to be by way of a civil suit where there is scope for the parties to the marriage coming together at the instance of relations, elders and    well-    wishers    and patching up their differences. [241G-H; 242A] 1.2 Entertaining    complaints of    the irate wife or husband    against the    husband    or wife without even an allegation of a specific and separate agreement constituting entrustment of the property of the wife of the husband would have disastrous    effects and consequences on the peace and harmony which ought to prevail in matrimonial homes. [242B] 1.3 The fact that no instance of any case of successful prosecution of    the husband or wife at the instance of the wife or    the husband could be    brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in the course of the arguments in this appeal would show that the spouses had not lightly rushed in the past to    criminal courts with complaints of criminal breach of trust against the other spouses though in the day-to-day life. There must have been numerous instance where the wife had used the    property or cash of the husband for purposes different from    the one    for which they were given by    the husband to be applied by the wife and vice-versa. Therefore, the minimum requirement in such cases is a specific separate agreement whereby the property    of the    wife or husband was entrusted to the husband or wife and or his or her close relations. In the absence of    such a specific separate agreement in the present case the complaint    was rightly quashed. [242D-F] & CRIMINAL APPELLATE    JURISDICTION: Criminal    Appeal    No. 684 of 1982 From the judgment and order dt. the 31st May, 1982 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. 4876M/81.

V.C. Mahajan, and N.S. Das Bahl for the Appellant. Altat Ahamed for the Respondents.

Mrs. U. Kapoor for the Intervener.

T The following Judgments were delivered FAZAL ALI,    J. Sometimes the law    which is meant to impart justice    and fair play to the citizens or people of the count is so torn and twisted by a morbid interpretative process that instead of giving haven to the disappointed and dejected litigants it    negatives their well    established rights in law. The present case reveals the sad story of a helpless married woman who, having been turned out by her husband without    returning her    ornaments, money and clothes despite repeated demands, and    dishonestly misappropriating the same, seems to have got some relief by the court of the first instance    but to    her utter dismay and disappointment when she moved the High Court    she was forced like a dumb- driven cattle to seek    the dilatory remedy of a civil suit- such was the strange and harsh approach of the High Court, with due respect, which seems to have shed all the norms of justice and fair play.    Even so, the High Court is not much to be blamed because in the process of following precedents or decisions of doubtful validity of some courts, it tried to follow suit. It may be stated that even the old classic Hindu law jurists and    celebrated sages conceded certain substantial rights to the women, one of which was - what is    called Saudayika or stridhan,    with which we    are concerned here.

This now brings us to a brief discussion of the nature, character and concomitants of stridhan. In the instant case, we are    mainly concerned with that part of stridhan which is the absolute property of a married women during coverture. Sir Gooroodas    Banerjee in 'Hindu Law of Marriage    and Stridhana' while describing the nature of stridhan quoted Katyayana thus:

"Neither the husband, nor the son, nor the father, nor the brother, has power to use or to alien the legal property of a woman. And if any of them shall consume such property against her    own consent he shall be compelled to pay its value with    interest to her, and shall also    pay a    fine to the king... Whatever she has put amicably into the hands of her husband afflicted by disease, suffering    from disease,    or sorely pressed by creditors, he should repay that by his own freewill. "
(P.341) At another    place while referring to the nature    of a husband's rights over stridhan during coverture, the author referring to Manu says thus:

" ..    and by the    law as expounded by    the commentators of the different schools, the unqualified dominion of the    husband    is limited to only    some descriptions of the wife's property, while as regards the rest he is allowed only a qualified right of use under certain circumstances specifically defined."
(p.340) Similarly, while describing the    nature    of stridhan generally, which is known as saudayika, the    author    says thus:
"First, take    the case of property    obtained by gift. Gifts of affectionate kinderd, which are known by the name saudayika stridhana, constitute a woman's absolute property, which she has at    all times independent power    to alienate, and over which    her husband has only a qualified right, -namely, the right of use in times of distress."
The entire    classical text    on the subject has    been summarised by N.R. Raghavachariar in 'Hindu Law' (5th Edn) at page    533 (section 487) where the following statement is made:
"487. Powers During Coverture.
Saudayika, meaning    the gift of    affectionate kindred, includes both Yautaka or gifts received at the time of marriage as well as its negative Ayautaka. In respect of    such property, whether given    by gift or will, she is the absolute owner and can deal with it in any way she likes. She may spend, sell or give it away at her own pleasure by gift or will without reference to her husband and property acquired by it is equally subject to    such rights. Ordinarily, the husband has no manner of    right or interest in it. But    in times of extreme distress, as    in famine,    illness    or imprisonment, or for the    performance of indispensable duty the husband can take and utilise    it for    his personal purposes, though even then he is morally bound to restore it or its value when able to do so. But this right is purely personal    to him and cannot be availed of by a holder of a decree against the husband, and if the husband dies with out utilising the property for the liquidation of his debts, his creditors cannot claim to proceed    against    it in    the place of    her husband."
To the same effect is Maines' treatise on Hindu Law at page 728. The characteristics    of Saudayika have also been spelt out by Mulla's Hindu law at page 168 (section 113) which gives a complete    list of the stridhan property of a woman both before and during coverture, which may be extracted thus:
"113. Manu enumerates six kinds of stridhana:
1.    Gifts made before the nuptial fire, explained by Katyayana to    mean gifts made at the time of marriage before the fire which is the witness of the nuptial (adhyagni).
2.    Gifts made at the bridal procession, that is, says Katyayana, while the bride is being led from the residence of her parents to that of her husband (adhyavanhanika)
3.    Gifts    made in token of love, that is,    says Katyayana, those made through affection by    her father-in-law and mother-in-law (pritidatta), and those made at time the of her making obeisance at the feet of elders (padavan danika).
4.    Gifts made by father.
5.    Gifts made by mother.
6.    Gifts made by a brother."
It    is, therefore, manifest that the    position of stridhan of a Hindu    married woman's property during coverture is absolutely clear    and unambiguous; she is the absolute owner    of such property and can deal with it in any manner she likes - she may spend the whole of it or give it away at    her own pleasure by    gift or will    without    any reference to her husband. Ordinarily, the husband has no right or interest in it with    the sole exception that in times of extreme distress, as in famine illness or the like, the husband can utilise it but he is morally bound to restore it or its value when he is able to do so. It may be further noted that this right is purely personal to    the husband and the property so received    by him    in marriage cannot be proceeded against even in execution of a decree for debt.
Such being    the nature and character of stridhan of a woman, it is difficult to countenance the view of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar Sethi & Ors. v. State of Punjab & An.(l) that the stridhan property of a married woman becomes a joint    property as soon as she enters her matrimonial home. We shall deal with    this aspect of    the matter a little later.

We would first like to narrate the facts of the case to show how the complaint    filed by the appellant was wrongly quashed by the High Court. The general allegations made in the complaint may be summarised as follows:- (1) AIR 1982 Punjab 372-

The complainant was married to Suraj Kumar, Accused No. 1 (respondent)    on 4.2.72 at Ludhiana according to Hindu rites and customs in the presence of respectable persons. Accused No.2 was the father and accused Nos.3 to 5    were brothers and No.6 was    brother-in-law of accused No.; It is further alleged    that all the accused attended and actively participated in the marriage of the complainant and demanded dowry. The must important allegation made by the appellant was that her parents and relatives gave by way of dowry articles worth    Rs. 60,000/- inclusive of gold ornaments, clothes and other things which were entrusted to accused Nos.1 to 6 on    5.2.72 which were taken into possession by them. Soon after the    marriage, accused No. 1 started harassing, teasing and beating the complainant and ultimately turned her out alongwith her children sometime in the year 1977. It was avered in para 4 of the complaint that accused never returned the articles to her, the relevant portion of the allegations may be extracted thus:-

"The articles    above-mentioned were never given by the accused to    the complainant for her use    and possession of the same was illegally, dishonestly and malafidely retained by the accused in order to make a wrongful gain to them selves and wrongful loss to the complainant.
The accused refused to give the entrusted articles of dowry,    which were the stridhan of the complainant. On 10.2.1981 when the accused Nos. 1 to    5 came to Ludhiana to attend the proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C., filed by the complainant    in the    Court of Shri    S.S. Tiwana, they were persuaded by the parents of    the complainant to send the articles entrusted to them at the time of marriage but they gave flat refusal to its notice which was served upon the accused No.1 which was dated 17.12.80, but to no effect. The accused have thus dishonestly used    and    converted the articles aforementioned to    their own use,    who are still in possession of the same in violation of the direction given by the parents of complainant. The parents of the complainant directed the accused at the time of marriage to give the articles to    the complainant for her use, in the presence of the aforesaid persons, but the accused have not done the needful of the demand and have thus committed criminal breach of trust punishable u/s 406 IPC."
A perusal    of the    allegations made in the complaint undoubtedly makes out a positive case of the accused having dishonestly misappropriated the articles handed over to them in a fiduciary capacity. To characterise such an entrustment as a joint custody or property given to the husband and the parents is wholly unintelligible to us. All the ingredients of an offense under s.405 IPC were pleaded and a prima facie case for summoning the accused was    made out. In    such circumstances, the complainant should have been given an opportunity by    the High Court to prove her case rather than quashing the complaint. Such an exercise of    jurisdiction under s.482 Cr.P.C. is totally unwarranted by law. We might also mention that alongwith    the complaint,    a list of valuable articles had also been given, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus;

I. " Jewellery"
1. Nine complete gold sets
2. One complete diamond set
3. Three gold rings
4. Two golden Bahi (Baju Band)
5. One golden chain
6. One shingar patti with golden tikka
7. One golden nath (Nose ring)
8. Twelve golden bangles II. Silver articles
1. Six glasses and one jug
2. Two surma danies
3. One tagari
4. Two payals III. Clothes Fifty one sarees, twenty one suits alongwith petti coats, blouses, nighties, shawls, sweaters, night suits, gowns and woollen    coat etc., six complete beds with sheets, etc."
A perusal    of the    list reveals that so    far as    the jewellery and clothes,    blouses, nighties and gowns    are concerned they    could be used only by the wife and were her stridhan. By no stretch of imagination could it be said that the ornaments and sarees and other articles mentioned above could also be used by the husband, If, therefore, despite demands these articles were refused to be returned to the wife by    the husband and his parents, it amounted to an offence of criminal breach of    trust.    In mentioning    the articles in the list, we have omitted furniture and utensils which though also belonged to the complainant yet there is some room for saying that these were meant for joint use of the husband and wife.

Thus, the    facts mentioned    in the    complaint taken at their face value reveal a clear allegation that the stridhan property of the appellant was entrusted to the husband who refused to return the same to her Some courts were of the opinion that in view of s. 27 of the    Hindu Marriage Act and s. 14 of the Hindu Succession act, the concept of stridhan    property of a woman    was completely abolished. For instance, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case reported in Surindra Mohan etc. v. Smt. Kiran Saini(1) held thus:

"That under the present law on claim can be made on the basis of stridhan, as it has now been completely abolished and cannot avail against statute which makes it the joint property of the parties."
We are of the opinion that this view of the High Court is not    legally sustainable because neither of the two Acts, referred to above, go    to the    extent of providing that the claim of a woman on the basis of stridhan is completely abolished. All    that the two    sections, mentioned above, provide is that if the husband re-

(1) 1977 Chandigarh Law Report 212 fuses to return the stridhan property of his wife, it will be open to the wife    to recover the same    by properly constituted suit. The sections    nowhere provide that    the concept of stridhan is abolished or that a remedy under the criminal law for breach of trust is taken away.

In a later decision in Bhai Sher Singh & Anr. v. Smt. Virinder Kaur(1), it was very rightly    pointed out by the same High Court that s. 27 of the Marriage    Act merely provides an alternate remedy to the wife to bring a properly constituted suit in respect of the stridhan property which the husband refused to return. Thus, it is clear that s. 27 merely provides    for an    alternate remedy and does not touch or affect in any way the Criminal liability of the husband in case it is proved that he has dishonestly misappropriated that stridhan of his wife. It cannot also be spelt out from any textbook or the sastric law of the Hindus that the two Acts mentioned    above take away the stridhan    right of a woman-at the most these Acts merely modify the concept of stridhan. It may be useful to    refer to certain pertinent observations in the aforesaid case.

"The aforementioned passage shows that a female has an absolute right to use her stridhan in any way she likes    and even if her husband can take    this property at the    time of distress, this right is personal to him, The allegations made in the instant complaint are not that the husband of the respondent has placed    her ornaments and jewellery etc. Out of her way. What    has been alleged therein is that    the petitioners who    are the parents-in-law of    the respondent have converted the ornaments and clothes, etc. presented to the respondent at the time of her marriage to their own use.
Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers a Court while deciding a matrimonial dispute to also pass a decree in respect of property    which    may jointly belong to    both the husband and the wife. This section at best provides a civil remedy    to an aggrieved wife and does not in any way take away her right to file a criminal complaint if the property belonging    to her is criminally misappropriated by her husband.'' In these circumstances, the decision reported in 1977 Chandigrah Law Reporter 212 can no longer be considered good law. Even in Vinod Kumar's case (supra) the    Full Bench reiterated the    view that s. 27 in no way abolishes stridhan but expressly recognises the property exclusively owned by the wife. In this connection, the Court observed thus:

"The express    words of the    provision refer to property 'which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife'. It    nowhere says that all    the wife's property be longs jointly to the couple or    that Stridhan is abolished and    she cannot be the exclusive owner thereof. Indeed, in    using the above terminology the statute expressly recognises that property which is exclusively owned    by the    wife is not within the ambit of Section    27 of the Hindu Marriage Act- - -Equally no other provision in the Hindu Marriage Act could be pointed out which erodes the concept of Stridhan or in anyway incapacitates the Hindu wife to hold property as an exclusive owner."

The sheet-anchor of the arguments of the counsel for the respondents-which is based on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vinod    Kumar's case-is that    the moment a woman after Marriage enters her matrimonial home, her stridhan property becomes    a joint properly of both the spouses and the question of application of s. 406 I.P.C is completely eliminated.    It is true that to a    great extent this part of    the argument of the    learned    counsel is supported by the aforesaid decision but, in our opinion, the decision, so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, is wholly unsustainable. We would first extract the exact ratio held by the High Court in Vinod Kumar's case:

"To conclude,    it necessarily follows from    the aforesaid discussion that    the very concept of the matrimonial home connotes a jointness of possession and custody by the spouses even with regard to the moveable properties exclusively owned by each of    them. It is, therefore, inapt to view    the same in view of    the conjugal relationship as involving any entrustment or passing of dominion over property day-to-day by the husband to the wife or vice versa. Consequently, barring a special written agreement    to the contrary, no question of    any entrustment or dominion over property would normally arise during coverture    or its imminent break-up. Therefore, the very essential prerequisites and    the core ingredients of the offence under S.406 of    the Penal Code    would be lacking in a charge    of criminal breach of    trust of property by one spouse against the other."
These observations    on doubt support the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent but    we find it impossible to agree with the aforesaid observations for the reasons that we shall give hereafter. We fail to understand the logic of the reasoning adopted by the High Court in investing the pure and simple stridhan of the wife with the character of a joint property. We are surprised that the High Court should have taken    the view that a woman's absolute property though well recognised    by law is interpreted by    it as being shorn    its qualities    and attributes once a bride enters her matrimonial home.

We are clearly of    the opinion that the mere factum of the husband and wife living together does not entitle either of then    to commit a breach of criminal law and if one does then he/she will be liable for all the consequences of such breach. Criminal law and matrimonial home are not strangers. Crimes committed in matrimonial home are as much punishable as anywhere else. In the case of stridhan property also, the title of which always remains with the    wife though possession of the same may sometimes be with the husband or other members of his family, if the husband    or any other member of his family commits such an offence, they will be liable to punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust under ss. 405 and 406, IPC.

Afterall how could any reasonable person expect a newly married women living in the same house and under the same roof to    keep her personal property    or belongings    like jewellery, clothing, etc., under her own lock and key, thus showing a spirit of distrust to the husband    at the    very behest. We are surprised how could the High Court permit the husband to cast his covetous eyes on the absolute and personal property of his wife merely because it is kept    in his    custody, thereby reducing the custody to a legal farce. On the other hand, it seems to that us even if the personal property of the wife is jointly kept, it would be expressly or impliedly kept in the custody of the husband and if    he dishonestly misappropriates or refuses to return the same, he is certainly guilty of    criminal breach of trust,    and there can be no escape from    this legal consequence. The observations of the High Court at other places regarding the inapplicability of s. 406 do not appeal to us and are in fact not in consonance with the spirit and trend of the criminal law. There are a large number of cases where criminal    law and    civil law can run side by side. the two remedies    are not mutually exclusive    but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in    their    content    and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property of the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrong deer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when    a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly    misappropriates the stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution under s. 406 I.P.C. Or render the ingredients of s. 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in    the custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken as no offence is committed is    to override and distort the real intent of the law.

Coming back to the theory of matrimonial home and the stridhan becoming a joint property of the two spouses, the logical effect    of the observation made by the High Court is that once a woman enters her matrimonial home she completely loses her exclusive stridhan by the same being treated as a joint property    of the spouses. In other words, if this view is taken in its literal sense    the consequence would be to deprive the wife of the absolute character and nature of her stridhan and make the husband a co-owner of the same - such a concept is neither contemplated nor known to Hindu law of stridhan, nor does it appeal to pure common sense. It is impossible to uphold the view that once a married woman enters    her matrimonial home her stridhan property undergoes a vital change so    as to    protect    the husband    from    being prosecuted even    if he    dishonestly misappropriates the same. For    instance, properties    like jewellery, clothing, cash, etc. given by her    parents as gifts cannot be touched by the husband except in    very extreme    circumstances,    viz.,    where    the husband is in imprisonment or    is in serious distress. Even then    the religion and    the law enjoins that the husband    must compensate the wife and if he cannot do so, he must pay fine to the King which means that the husband would` be liable to penal action under the present law of the land. -

One of the arguments addressed by the counsel for the respondent which had appealed to thee full Bench of the Pun jab & Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar's case (supra) as also to    our learned Brother Varadarajan, J., is that after entering the matrimonial home    the custody of the stridhan entrusted by the wife    to her    husband becomes    a sort of a partnership firm and in this view of the matter the question of criminal breach of trust does not arise. In our opinion, it is neither appropriate nor apposite to import the concept of partnership    in the    relationship of husband and wife for the simple reason that the    concept    of partnership is entirely different from that of the husband's keeping the stridhan in his custody. Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Partnership Act') defines 'partnership' thus:

"partnership" is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profit of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.
Persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually "partners"    and collectively "a firm" and    the name under which their business is carried on is called the "firm name". The essential ingredients of a partnership are: (1) that there should be an    actual or physical overt act    on the    part of    two persons to embark an a business adventure.
(2) that if any business is carried on by one or any of the partners the profits of the business shall be shared by    - them in the ratio contained in    the partnership agreement.
It is, therefore, manifest that in a partnership the wife must by some clear and specific act indicates that the stridhan which    has been entrusted to the husband is to be used for a partnership business and the losses of the firm, if any    would have to be shared by both. In other words, one of the    essential conditions of a partnership firm is that every partner must have dominion over the property by virtue of the    fact that he is a partner. This aspect of the matter was highlighted    in a decision of this Court    in Velji a Raghavji v. State of Maharashtra(1) where the following observations were made:

".. Every partner has dominion over    property by reason of the fact that he is a partner. This is a kind of dominion which every owner of property has over his property. But it is not dominion    of this kind which satisfies the requirements of s.    405. In order to establish 'entrustment of dominion' over property to an accused person the mere existence of that person's dominion over property is not enough.    It must be further shown that his dominion . was the result of entrustment."
In the instant case, however, there is    neither    any allegation nor    anything in the complaint to show that when the wife entered her matrimonial home she had entrusted the property to her husband so as to make him part owner of the same. Therefore, the    question of the husband's having dominion over the property does not at all arise. In fact, the wife has nothing to do with the partnership, if any, and the husband is a pure and simple custodian of the property and cannot use the same for any purpose without    her consent.A pure and simple act of entrustment of the stridhan to the    husband    does not attract any of the essential ingredients of a a partnership as defined in the Partnership Act.

In the instant case, there is also no question of the wife constituting herself a partner with her husband merely by allowing him to keep the    articles or money in    his custody. There    is neither any pleading nor any allegation that after her marriage, the appe-

(1)AIR 1965 SC 1433.

llant transferred all her properties to her    husband    for carrying on a partnership business in    accordance with the provisions of the Partnership Act. Thus, in our opinion, it cannot be said that a bare act of keeping stridhan property in the custody of the husband constitutes a partnership and, therefore, a criminal case    under s. 406    IPC is    not maintainable. It is not necessary for us to multiply cases on this point on which there    does not appear to be    any controversy. We    have already pointed out that the stridhan of a woman is    her absolute property and the husband has no interest in the same and the entrustment to him is just like something which he wife keeps in a Bank and can withdraw any amount whenever she likes without any hitch or hindrance and the husband cannot use the    stridhan for his personal purposes unless    he obtains the tacit    consent of his wife. When the essential conditions of a partnership do not exist the mere act or factum of entrustment of stridhan would not constitute any    co-ownership or legal partnership as defined under s.4 of the Partnership Act.

To sum up the position seems to be that a pure and simple entrustment of stridhan    without creating any rights in the    husband excepting putting the articles in    his possession does    not entitle him to use the same to    the detriment of his wife    without her consent. The husband has no justification for not returning the said articles as and when demanded by the wife nor can he burden her with loss-, of business by using the said    property which was never intended by her while entrusting possession of stridhan.) On the allegations in the complaint, the husband is no more and no less than a pure and simple custodian acting on b-half of his wife and if he diverts the entrusted property elsewhere or for different purposes he takes a clear risk of prosecution under s.406 of    the IPC. On a parity of reasoning, it is mainfest that the husband, being only a custodian of the stridhan of his wife, cannot be said to be in joint possession thereof    and thus acquire a joint interest in the property.

For these    reasons, the    custody    or entrustment of stridhan with the husband does not amount to a partnership in any    sense of the term and therefore, we are unable to agree with view taken in Vinod Kumar's case as also with the opinion expressed by our Brother on the points arising in the case.

Another serious consequence as a result of the ratio of the full Bench decision in Vinod Kumar's case would be to render the provisions of s. 406 IPC inapplicable and nugatory even if the husband has the audacity or the importunity of refusing to return the stridhan    of his    wife. Furthermore, we shall hereafter show    that the view of the Full Bench is in direct contravention of a long course of decisions of this Court on the ingredients    of s.    405 IPC. Before coming to    this chapter, we would like    to say    a few things more about the judgment of the High Court which on deeper probe and careful scrutiny seems to be self-contradictory.

We are clearly of    the opinion that the    concept of stridhan property of a married woman becoming a joint property of both the spouses as soon as she    enters    her matrimonial home and continues    to be    so until she remains there or even if there is a    break    in the    matrimonial alliance, is in direct contravention of Hindu Law of Sadayika which    has been administered    since more than a century by High Courts, Privy- Council as also this Court. By a pure and simple figment of the fertile imagination the Judges in Vinod Kumar's case seem to have rewritten the law of criminal breach of trust contained in ss. 405 and 406 IPC so as to carve out an imaginary exception to the application of the    Penal Code.A more tragic consequence of the    view taken by the High Court is that even if there is a break in the matrimonial alliance and the wife wants her husband to return her exclusive property and he refuses to return, even then the provisions of s. 406 IPC would not apply. It is an extreme travesty of justice for a court to say that whenever a married woman demands- her stridhan    property from    her husband she should be driven to the dilatory process of a civil court and her husband would be debarred from being prosecuted by a criminal court. By a strange and ingenious process of holding that such an act of a husband does not attract the provisions of the Penal Code, as the property being joint there is no question of the husband being a trustee or holding the same in a fiduciary capacity. Such a view, in our opinion, is not only contradictory but-what the High Court has said before regarding    the applicability of s.27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the nature of stridhan as referred to above-is also neither in consonance with logic and reason nor with the express provisions of the Penal Code and seems to us to be inspired by    a spirit of    male chauvininism so    as to    exclude the husband from criminal lability merely because his wife has refused to live in    her matrimonial home. We are indeed surprised how could the High Court, functioning in    a civilised and socialistic society such as ours, play havoc with judicial interpretation of an important branch of law.

We shall now show how the final view taken by the High Court is clearly contradictory    to what it has observed before. In paragraphs 22A, 23 and 24 of the judgment, the High Court observes as follows:

"It must, therefore, be unreservedly stated that the law, as it stands today, visualises a complete and full ownership of her individual property by a Hindu wife and in this    context the factum of marriage is of little or    no relevance and she can own    and possess property in the same manner as a Hindu male. Once it is held that a Hindu wife can own property in her own right, then it is purely a question of fact whether the dowry or the traditional presents given to her, were    to be individually owned by her or had been gifted to    the husband alone or jointly to the couple.- ..    For instance    jewellery meant for the personal wearing of    the bride, wedding apparel made to    her measures specifically, cash amounts put into a fixed deposit ill a bank expressly in her E name; are obvious examples of dowry raising the    strongest, if    not conclusive presumption, of her separate owner ship in these articles. Once it is found as a fact that these articles of dowry were so given to her individually and in her own right, then I am unable to see how the mere factum of    marriage would alter any such property right and divest her    of ownership    either    totally or partially."
In these paragraphs the High Court unequivocally and categorically expresses    the view that a Hindu woman    has complete and full ownership of her individual property and the factum of marriage    is of no relevance to determine the nature of the property    It also holds that articles    like jewellery, wedding apparel and cash, etc., cannot alter any such property right. In view of this clear finding given by the High Court, how could it make a complete volte-face by holding that these very properties after marriage become joint property    of both    the spouses. The High Court has not realised that the theory or philosophy of matrimonial home propounded by it stands directly contradicted    by its    own observations referred to above.

In paragraph 49 of the judgment, the High Court clearly finds that the mere use by the relations of the husband would not have the effect of passing the possession of the property to the Hindu undivided family and in    this connection observes thus :-

Equally, the    common use and enjoyment of certain articles of dowry and traditional presents, by    the other members of a joint family    with the leave    and licence of    a Hindu wife, cannot    have the effect of extending the jointness Of control and custody of the couple to undefined    and unreasonable limits. Consequently, there is no    reason to assume that    the mere user or enjoyment of the dowry by other members of the house-hold, would have the effect of passing the possession and control thereof jointly to the Hindu Undivided Family as such."

Thus, these observations run counter and    are totally inconsistent and irreconcilable with the view taken by the High Court in paragraph 41 where it has observed thus:

Re: Pratibha Rani vs Suraj Kumar - Streedhan

"In the light of the above it would be farcical to assume that despite the factum of a marriage and a common matrimonial    home the two spouses would stand in a kind of a formal relationship where each is entrusted with or has been    passed dominion    over the exclusive property of the other..-....The matrimonial home so long as it subsist presumes a jointness of custody and possession by the spouses    of their individual as also of    their    joint properties line.. The inevitable presumption during    the existence or the imminent break up of the matrimonial home there fore is one of joint possession    of the spouses which might perhaps be dislodged by the special    terms of a written contract. However, to be precise    this presumption of joint possession properties within the    matrimonial home can subsist only as long- as the matrimonial home subsists or on the immediate break up thereof."
At other places the High Court has observed thus:
"47. In view of    the above, it would    be equally untenable to hold that either the desertion or the expulsion of one of the spouses    from the matrimonial home would    result    in entrusting dominion over    the property belonging to the other so as to bring the case within the    ambit of this pre requisite under S.405, Indian Penal Code. The joint custody and possession once established    would    thereafter........ exclude either express entrustment or the passing of dominion over the property. It was rightly argued that if an irate husband or wife walks out from the matrimonial home in a huff, this cannot constitute an entrustment or    dominion over the    property to    the other. Consequently, unless a special written agreement to the contrary can be established, the strongest presumption arises that during the existence and immediately after the crumbling of the matrimonial home, there was in essence, a joint possession and custody of the property of the spouses therein, including dowry and traditional presents,    which    would preclude    the essentials of entrustment or dominion over the property which form the cornerstone of criminality under s.405, Indian Penal Code.
53. It cannot, therefore, be prim. facie presumed that these are    exclusively the    ownership of the wife or inevitably entrusted either to the husband or his close relations. As was noticed earlier, if an irate wife in a tantrums    abandons the matrimonial home, such    like property does not in the eye of law become entrusted to the parents-in-law    or other close relations of the husband No    such gullible presumption of entrustment or passing of    the dominion of property can be raised in such a situation    to come within the    mischief of criminality for breach    of trust. Entrustment or dominion over the property has to be unequivocally alleged and conclusively established by proof later."
The High Court had itself rightly spelt out the legal propositions that the pure and traditional presents given to a bride    in a Hindu wedding may be    divided    into three categories, viz.,

(a) property intended for exclusive use of the bride, e. g., her personal    jewellery, wearing apparel, etc.

(b) articles of dowry which may be for common use and enjoyment in the matrimonial home, and

(c) articles given as presents to the husband or the parent-in -law and other members of his family. With regard to category (a) above, the    High Court observed thus:

"Similarly as regards the    first    category of articles meant for the exclusive use of the bride she would retain her pristine    ownership therein irrespective or    her entry and presence in    the matrimonial home or that of her parents in-law."
The High Court thus accepts the well established rule of Hindu law of stridhan that    that articles mentioned in category (a) are meant    for the exclusive use of the bride and are    her personal property. Unfortunately, however, with regard to category (c) while discussing the question of the rights of the bride to her exclusive property upon her entry in her    matrimonial home, the High Court has wrongly applied what it    had previously held with regard to category (a). In one breath the Judges    say that the bride is entitled to retain her ownership irrespective of her entry and presence in the    matrimonial home and in the other they come to the conclusion that    the moment a    married woman    enters    her matrimonial home, all her    properties, including    her exclusive property, become a joint property by a fiction of being placed in the custody of her husband or his relations. While we agree with the first    part of the categories, as extracted above, we find it difficult    to accept the other propositions adumbrated    at a later stage of the judgment which have been fully discussed by us. We fail to understand how the    High Court while finding that joint enjoyment does not divest a Hindu wife of her exclusive ownership still chose to treat it a joint property of the two spouses by the mere factum of joint user. The two views expressed by the High Court stand contradicted    by its    own findings and are wholly understandable. Thus, a    detailed analysis of    the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar's case (supra) appears to us to    be a mass of confusion and lacks both clarity and coherence. We are, therefore, unable to uphold or support the view    of the High Court that upon entering the matrimonial home    the ownership    of stridhan property becomes joint with her husband or his relations- To this extent, therefore, we overrule this decision and hold that with regard to the stridhan property of a married woman, even if it is placed in the custody of her husband or in-laws they would be    deemed to be trustees    and bound to return the same if and when demanded by her.

The Supreme Court in a large number of cases has held that the fundamental core of the offence of criminal breach of trust. is that a property    must be    entrusted and    the dominion of the property should be given to the trustee. In the present case, all    these conditions, even according to the findings of the Court though not its conclusion, are clearly established. That the    view of    the High Court is absolutely wrong would be    clear from a    number    of authorities, some of which we would like to discuss here.

In Chelloor Manaklal Narayan Ittiravi Nambudiri v. State of Travancore(1) this    Court    made the following observations:

"As laid down in S. 385,    Cochin    Penal    Code (corresponding to    S. 405, Indian Penal Code) to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust it is essential that the prosecution must prove first of all that the accused was entrusted with some property or with any dominion or power over    it-It follows almost axiomatically from    this definition that the ownership or beneficial interest in    the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, must be in some person other than    the accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way for his benefit."
In Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v., State    of Bombay(2) Sinha, J. (as he then was) observed thus:

"For an offence under section 409,    Indian Penal Code, the    first essential    ingredient to    be proved is that the property was entrusted- - But when section 405 which defines "criminal breach of trust    speaks of a person being (1) AIR 1953 SC 478.
(2) [1956] S.C.R. 483.

in any manner entrusted with property, it does    not contemplate the creation    of a trust with all    the technicalities of    trust. It contemplates the creation of a relationship whereby    the owner of property makes it over to another person to be retained by him until a certain contingency arises or to be disposed of by him on the happening of a certain events."

In Akharbhai Nazorali v. Md. Hussain Bhai(1) the Madhya Pradesh High Court made the following observations:

"It may be that the deduction and retention of the employees' contribution is a trust created by virtue of that very    fact, or by virtue of a provision in statute or statutory rule. But even apart from the latter, the mere fact    of telling the employees that it is their contribution to the provident fund scheme and    then making a    deduction or recovery    and retaining    it, constitutes the offence of criminal breach of trust. This is so obvious that nothing more need be said about it."
These observations    were fully endorsed and approved by this Court in Harihar    Prasad Dubey v. Tulsi Das Mundhra & Ors.(2 where the following observations were made:

"This, in our opinion, is a correct statement of the position and we also agree with the learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that "this so obvious that nothing more need be said about it We, therefore, think that    the impugned    order quashing    the charge against the respondents is obviously wrong." In Basudeb    Patra v. Kanai Lal Haldar(3) the Calcutta High Court observed thus:
"Whereas the illustration to s. 405 show equally clearly that the property comes into.
(1) AIR 1961 M. P. 37:

(2) AIR 1981 SC 92.

(3) AIR 1949 Calcutta 207, the possession of the accused either by    an express entrustment or by some process placing the accused in a position of trust..-.-On the facts of the present case, which, as I have said, are not open to question at this stage, it is quite clear that the ornaments were handed over to the petitioner by the beneficial owner in the confidence    that    they would be returned to    the beneficial owner in due time after having been used for the purpose for which they were handed over. If this is not an entrustment, if is impossible to conceive what can be an entrustment."

(Emphasis ours) This ratio    was fully approved by    this Court in Velji Raghavji Patel    v. State of Maharashtra(1) where    the following observation were made:

"In order    to establish " entrustment of dominion" over property to an accused person the mere existence of that person's dominion over property is not enough. It must be further shown that his dominion was the result of entrustment. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Harris, C.J. the prosecution must establish    that dominion over the assets    or a particular asset of the partnership was by a special agreement    between    the parties, entrusted to the accused person."
In    the case of    State    of Gujrat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal,(2) Hegde, J., speaking for the Court, observed thus:

"The expression 'entrustment' carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property    is handed over to another, continues    to be its owner. Further the person handing over the property    must have confidence in the person taking the property so as to create a fiduciary relationship between them."
In Sushil    Kumar Gupta v. Joy Shanker Bhattacharjee(3) this Court observed thus:

(1) AIR 1965 SC 1433.

(2) [1968] 2 SCR 408.

(3) AIR 1971 SC 1543.

"The offence of criminal    breach of trust is committed when a person who    is entrusted in any    manner    with property or with dominion over it,    dishonestly misappropriates it    or converts it to his own use.. The appellant's manner    of dealing with the money entrusted to his custody clearly constitutes criminal breach of trust."
In the case of Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. S.K. Roy (1) this Court held that for 'entrustment' two things are necessary, viz., (l) the entrustment may    arise in "any manner" whether or not it is fraudulent, and    (2) the accused must    have acquisition or dominion over the property.

In Bhai Sher Jang    Singh & Anr. v. Smt. Virinder Kaur (supra) the Punjab & Haryana High Court observed thus:

It might be that some of the articles which were presented to her are for the use of both the spouses but the ornaments and things of    the like nature are certainly meant for her and her alone. When she makes an allegation in the complaint that either her husband or her parents-in-law had    converted to their own use the ornaments forming the    part of her stridhan which she had entrusted to them, the Court has to give legal effect to    such allegation    and to assume that    such ornaments had been made the subject matter of criminal breach of    trust. It is settled law that    even in a criminal complaint the    complainant is under no obligation to plead the legal effect of the allegations made. All    that    is required is that the facts constituting a complaint should be    specifically mentioned so that the Court may be able to perform its duty of punishing the accused under the    appropriate provision of law if such allegations are made    out. Further more, in a case like this a complaint cannot be quashed without giving the aggrieve wife an opportunity of proving    that the ornaments had been given to her at the time of her marriage for her use only."
(Emphasis supplied) We fully endorse this decision and hold that it lays down the correct law on the subject.
(1) [1974] 4 S.C.C. 230.

There is a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which more or    less takes the same view as    the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar's case (supra). In Criminal Misc. Case No. 676 of 1981 (connected with) Criminal Misc. Case No. 2753 of 1981, Kailash Nath Agarwal & Ors. v. Prem Pal Agarwal & Anr., (decided on 22.12.1983), the Allahabad High Court, out of the three categories laid down    by Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar's case, accepted only the third category, viz., articles which constitute    the individual property of the person for    whose    use it    was given, and held that the rest of the property falling under categories (a)    and (b)    would be property exclusively meant for the use of    the bride and once it was brought to the family home, the possession would be    joint unless by an express written    agreement there was an entrustment of the property of the bride    to other members of the family. The Allahabad High    Court thus also accepts the concept of the property being    a joint property in the matrimonial home. By and large this decision toes the line of the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana    High Court in Vinod Kumar's case. Furthermore, the High Court has gravely erred in holding that the property could only be claimed by filing a properly constituted civil suit or in accordance with the provisions of the    Dowry Prohibition Act or the Hindu Marriage Act as the case may be. This proposition, in our opinion, is wholly incorrect as conceded even by the Punjab , & Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar's case.

There is an earlier decision of    the Punjab & Haryana High Court which clearly holds that where there is a clear allegation of entrustment by the wife against the husband, he could be prosecuted    by a criminal court on a complaint filed by the wife. In this connection, the Court in Avtar Singh & Anr. v. Kirpal Kaur Criminal Misc. No.2144-M of 1979 and Criminal Misc.No.2145 of 1979, decided on 16 8.79) made the following observations:

"In my opinion, where certain thing    is lying in trust with a    person, offence of dishonest misappropriation would be    committed on    a date    the demand for return of the entrusted articles is made and the same is declined...According to the complaint, the first demand for the return of the articles was made on January 27, 1976 and it was that date when the demand was declined. Hence, the offence of misappropriation of the dowry    articles lying    in trust was committed on January 27, 1976."
We    find    ourselves in entire agreement with    this decision and hold that this was correctly decided.

This Court has pointed out more than once that the High Court should very sparingly exercise its discretion under s. 482 Cr.    P.C. In L.V. Jadhav v. Shankarrao Abasaheb Pawar & Ors.(l) (to which two of us were a party), this Court made the following observations:

"The High Court, we cannot refrain from observing, might well    have refused to invoke its inherent powers at    the very threshold    in order to    quash    the proceedings, for these powers are meant to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection when there is reason to believe    that the process of law is being misused to harass a citizen."
In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors.(2) this Court observed as follows :-

"Thus, it may be safely held that in the following cases an    order of the    magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside: (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent    person can ever reach    a conclusion    that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion    exercised by    the Magistrate in suing process is capricious and arbitrary having been either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (1) AIR [1983]SC 1219.

(2) [1976] Supp. SCR123 (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of section, or absence of a complaint by legally competent    authority and    the like.

The cases    mentioned by us are purely illustrative and pro vide    sufficient    guidelines to indicate contingencies where the    High    Court    can quash proceedings." B The same principles would    apply mutatis mutandis to a criminal complaint.

We now come to the question as to whether or not a clear allegation of entrustment and misappropriation of properties was made by the appellant in her complaint and, if so, was the High Court justified in quashing the complaint at that stage. It    is well settled by a long course of this Court that for the    purpose of exercising its power under s. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a FIR or a complaint the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. In case no offence is committed on the allegation and    the ingredients of s.405 & 406, I.P.C. are not made out, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. In the present case, we shall show that    the allegations are both clear, specific and    unambiguous and, therefore, the complainant should have been given a chance to prove her    case. It is, of course, open to the accused at the trial to take whatever defence that were open to him but that stage had not yet come and therefore, the High Court    was totally ill-advised to speculate on the merits of    the case at    that stage and quash    the proceedings. We have narrated the facts    in detail in the earlier part of our judgment    but we might again, even at the risk of repetition, indicate the bare facts which prima facie make out a clear case under s.406, IPC against the accused. The important portions of the complaint may be spelt out thus:

(1) that all the accused attended the marriage of the appellant with the respondent and demanded dowry from the parents of the appellant in consideration of the marriage.

(2) that the parents of the appellant spent Rs,75,000 on the marriage and dowry articles worth Rs.60,000 (inclusive of    jewellery, wearing apparel, etc.) were given and entrusted to accused Nos.1 to 6 at the time of the Doli on 5.2.72, (3) that the articles entrusted    to the    accused were meant for the exclusive use of the appellant, (4) that the dowry articles were never    given by the accused to the appellant even for her use    and possession of    the same was illegally, dishonestly and mala fidely retained by the accused in order to obtain a    wrongful gain    to themselves    and wrongful loss to the appellant, (5) that on 11.12.1980 in the morning,    the accused brought the appellant to Ludhiana in three clothes and refused to give    the entrusted articles which were the stridhan of the appellant.

Taking all the allegations made above, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the allegations do not prima facie amount to an offence of    criminal breach of trust against the respondent. Thus, there can be no room for doubt that all the facts stated in    the complaint constitute an offence under s. 406 IPC and the appellant cannot be denied the right to prove her case at the trial by per-empting it at the very behest by the order passed by the High Court.

We therefore, overrule the decisions of    the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar's case. By way of post-script we might add that we are indeed amazed to find    that so deeply drowned and inherently engrossed are some of    the High Courts in the concept of matrimonial home qua the    stridhan property of a married women that    they simply refuse to believe that such properties are meant for the exclusive use of the wife    and could also be legally entrusted to the husband or his relatives. Thus, if    the husband or his relatives misappropriate the same and refuse to hand    it over to the wife and convert them to their own use and    even though these facts are clearly    alleged in a complaint for an offence under s. 405/406 I.P.C.,    some courts take the complaint is not maintainable. Thus, even when clear and specific allegations are made in    the complaint that such properties were entrusted to the husband,    they refuse to believe these hard facts and brush them aside on the ground that they are vague. The allegations of    the complainant in    this appeal and the    appeal    before    the Allahabad and the Punjab & Haryana High Court show that it is not    so but    is a pure figment of the High Court's imagination as    a result of which the High Court completely shut their eyes to the fact that the husband could also be guilty    under s. 405/406 I P.C. in    view of the clear allegations made in the complaint. In other words, the High Courts simply refuse to believe that there can be any such entrustment and    even if it is    so no offence is committed. Such an    approach amounts to a    serious distortion of    the criminal law,    resulting in perpetrating    grave    and substantial miscarriage    of justice to the wife at the hands of the    High Courts. We cannot countenance such a wrong and perverse approach.

For the reasons given above, we are satisfied that as the complaint prima facie disclosed an offence of criminal breach of trust as defined in s. 405/406 of the Indian Penal Code the High    Court was not justified in    quashing`the complaint. We,    therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the complaint filed by the    appellant and    direct    that the accused may be summoned, if not already summoned, and put on trial in accordance with law.

VARADARAJAN, J. This criminal appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the    Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No.4876 of 1981.

The appellant, Pratibha Rani is the estranged wife of the first respondent Suraj Kumar who is the brother of the second respondent Krishan Lal.    One Rattan Chand is    the father of respondents 1 and 2 and two others Chander Kumar and Vishwinder    Kumar. One Jugal Kumar is the brother-in-law of the first respondent.

The appellant filed a criminal complaint for an offence under s.406 I.P.C. against her husband and his father and brothers and brother-in-law mentioned above in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, alleging that she was married to the first respondent at Ludhiana on

4. 2. 1972 according to the Hindu rites and customs. The material averments in the complaint are these: The aforesaid persons, namely, father, brother and brother-in-law of the first respondent attended    the marriage and demanded dowry from the appellant's parents as consideration for the marriage. Accordingly, dowry articles mentioned in the list    appended to the complaint, worth Rs. 60,000, in the form of golden    articles, clothes and other valuables were    given and entrusted to    the respondents and four others mentioned in the complaint at Ludhiana time of 'doli' on 5.2.1972 in    the presence of Kapur Chand Jain and six others. The six respondents in the complaint started teasing, harassing and beating the appellant and they kept her without even food    to extract more money from    her parents. They turned out the appellant with her children in the beginning of 1977. After a great deal of persuasion and intervention by Panchayatdars, respondent 1 came to Ludhiana and took the    appellant to his house after giving an undertaking in    writing on 21. 6. 1977 not to misbehave with and maltreat the appellant her children. But after some time all the respondents in the complaint started maltreating the appellant and misbehaving with    her. The articles mentioned in the    list were never given    by the    respondents in    the complaint 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. The    respondents in    the complaint    brought    the appellant to Ludhiana at 4.30 a.m. On 11.12.1980 and left her near Kailash Cinema Chowk. They refused to give    the articles mentioned in the list which are the stridhan of the appellant to her. When    the appellant's husband and    his brother, Vishwinder Kumar, respondents 1 and 5 in    the complaint, came    to Ludhiana on 10.2.1981 to    attend    the proceeding started by the appellant under s. 125 Cr. P.C., her parents persuaded them to return the articles entrusted to them    at the time of the marriage but they flatly refused to comply with that demand. The articles have not    been returned in spite of service of notice dated 17. 12. 1981 on the first respondent. Thus the respondents in the complaint have dishonestly converted the    articles belonging to    the appellant for their use in violation of the direction of the appellant's parents given at the time    of the    marriage to give the articles for the appellant's use.

The respondents in this appeal filed Criminal Misc. Case No.4876 of 1981 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court under    s.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 s. 406 I.P.C. and his order summoning them.

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J. before whom the matter came up in the High Court relied strongly upon the observations made by a Full Bench of that High Court in Vinod Kumar Sethi & Ors. v.    State of PunJab and Ors.(l) and has observed in his judgment that the mere handing over of the articles of dowry of stridhana to the husband and other relations at the time of the marriage does not constitute entrustment in the sense of the    word used in ss. 405 and 406 I P.C. and that it does not amount to passing    of dominion over those    articles to them. The learned Judge has observed that there can be such an entrustment    only by a subsequent conscious act of volition ` and that in the absence of such    an act    any allegations of    breach of trust between the husband and wife cannot constitute an offence under s.406 I.P.C. The learned Judge has further observed that between the husband and wife there is always a jointness of control and possession of the properties of the spouse within the matrimonial home    and that it    goes against the very concept of entrustment of his or her property by one spouse to the other. In this view, he allowed the petition and quashed the proceeding arising out of the appellant's complaint, observing that the allegations in the appellant's complaint are similar to the one in Vinod Kumar's case (supra) and that this case is fully covered by the ratio in that decision.

The appellant has, therefore, come to this Court in appeal by special leave, impleading the petitioners before the High Court, who are only two out of the six respondents in the complaint, as respondents in this appeal.

In a petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. for    quashing a criminal complaint, the allegations made in the complaint have to    be taken to be correct in order to find out whether they constitute the various ingredient of    the offence alleged. In Nagawa Veernna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors ) illustrations have been given    of cases in which it may be safely held that an order of    a Magistrate issuing process against an accused can be quashed or set aside. They are: (1) AIR 1982 Punjab 372.

(2) [1976] Suppl S.C.R. 123 (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same,    taken    at their face value, make    out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose    the essential    ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are palpably absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent    person can ever reach    a conclusion    that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(3) Where the discretion    exercised by    the Magistrate    in issuing process    is capricious    and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where    the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects such as want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by a legally competent    authority and    the like."

Article 126 in Mulla's Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition, describing what constitutes Stridhana reads: -

"property given or bequeathed to a    Hindu female whether during maidenhood, coverture or widowhood by her parents and their relation or by her husband and his relations is stridhana according to    all schools except that the Dayabhaga does not recognise immovable property given or bequeathed by husband to his wife as stridhana."
Section 2    of the    Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 defines "dowry" as meaning:

"any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or (b) by the parents of either party to the marriage, or by any other person to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or before of after    the marriage in connection with the marriage    of the said parties but does not include dower or mahr in the case of person    to whom    the Muslim personal law (Shariat) applies."
In the present complaint    of the wife    against    the husband and , his three brothers, father and brother-in-law, it is alleged that the marriage was performed at Ludhiana on 4.2.1972 according to Hindu rites and customs and that the father and three brothers and the brother-in law of    the husband attended the marriage    and demanded dowry from the wife's parents    as consideration for the marriage and that accordingly dowry articles worth Rs.60,000, mentioned in the list attached to the complaint, consisting of gold articles, clothes and other valuables were given and entrusted to the husband and the other five respondents in the complaint, at the time of the 'doli' at Ludhiana on 5.2. 1972 in    the presence of Kapur Chand Jain and six other persons. For the purpose of the petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. those articles must be    prima facie considered to be dowry or stridhana of the appellant-wife.

In Velji Raghavjl Patel v. State of Maharashtra,(1) it is observed:

"Upon the plain reading of s.405, I.P.C. it is obvious that before a person can be said to have committed    criminal breach of    trust it must be established that    he was    either    entrusted with or entrusted with dominion over property which he is said to have converted to his own use or disposed of in violation of any direction of law etc. Every partner has dominion over property by reason of the fact that he is a partner. This is a kind of dominion which every owner of property has over his property. But it is not dominion of the kind which satisfies the requirements of s. 405. In order to    establish "entrustment of dominion" over property to an accused person the mere existence of that person's dominion over    property is not enough. It must be further shown that his dominion was the result of    entrustment. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Harris C.J., the prosecution    must establish that dominion over the assets or a particular asset of the partnership    was by    a special agreement between the parties, entrusted to the accused person.
If in the absence    of such a a special    agreement a partner receives money belonging to the partnership he cannot be said to have received it in a (1) [1965] 2 S C.R. 429 fiduciary capacity    or in other words cannot be held to have been    "entrusted" with dominion over    partnership properties."

In State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal(1) it is observed:

"Before there can be any entrustment there must be a trust meaning thereby an obligation annexed to the owner ship    of property and a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him for the benefit of another or of another and the owner. But that does not    mean that such an entrustment need conform to all the technicalities of the law of trust - see Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay [1956] SCR    483, 498-500.    The expression 'entrustment' carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to anther, continues    to be    its owner. Further the person handing over the property must have confidence in the person    taking the property so as to create a fiduciary relationship between them."
In Sushil    Kumar Gupta v. Joy Shankar Bhattacharyya(2), it is observed:

"The    offence    of criminal breach of trust is committed when a person who is entrusted in any manner with property or with dominion over it,    dishonestly misappropriates it, or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses it or disposes it of, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged, or of any lawful contract, express or implied, made by    him touching    such discharge, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do."
In Superintendent    Remembrancer of    Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. S.K. Roy(8), it is observed:

"There are, however, two distinct parts involved in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust. The first    consists of the creation of an obligation in rela (1) [1968] 2 SCR 408.
(2) [1970] 3 SCR, 770.

(3) [1974] 4 SCC,230.

tion to the property over which dominion or control is acquired    by the accused. The second is a misappropriation    or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created.

The most important ingredient of an offence under s. 406, which is alleged    by the wife against her husband, his three brothers,    father and brother-in-law in her complaint in the present case is the entrustment of the dowry articles to the    respondent in the complaint and ,their dishonest conversion thereof to their own use.    There is no doubt an allegation in the complaint that these articles were given and entrusted    to the    respondents in the complaint at Ludhiana at the time of doll    on 5-2-1972. Apart from the husband the other respondents    in the complaint, as already stated, are his father, three brothers and brother-in-law. The articles were given for the use of the wife- If so, could there be entrustment of the articles to such a number of diverse persons? In the background of what usually happens in Hindu marriages namely, placing of the articles presented to the bride    in the    presence of the elders and others assembled for the occasion and removal thereof after the function is over    it has to be seen    whether    the allegation made    in the    complaint amounts to entrustment as required by law to make out an offence under s. 406 l.P.C. This question has been considered in detail by a Full Bench of the    Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar's case (supra) after an analysis of several    decision relating to the question. The learned Single Judge who has quashed the complaint in the present case on a petition of the husband and one    of his    brothers has heavily relied upon that Full Bench decision    of his Court. What runs through the judgment of the    learned Judges    in that    case is the concern of the Court for the peaceful    and harmonious relationship between the spouses in a matrimonial home and    a careful consideration of the question    whether    the ingredient of entrustment" exists in such    cases. Therefore, it is necessary to note what    has been observed in    some of    the paragraphs of the judgment to that case. The learned Chief justice speaking for the Bench has observed:

"21.. The present set of cases presents a    sad spectacle of a house divided against itself, not merely in the biblical but in the literal sense, where wives are ranged against their husbands in    acrimonious criminal prosecu-
tions. The    challenge on behalf of the husbands    and their relations is focussed basically against    the charge of    breach of trust under    Section 406 of    the Indian Penal Code, levelled against them. Now the core of the argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the very concept of any entrustment or passing dominion over her property by the wife to the husband does not arise at all so long as    the marriage subsists.    The contention is that the very nature of the conjugal relationship itself would negative any such stand. On this premise it is contended that the    basic    pre- requisite of the entrustment of property    or dominion over property being lacking and non-existent, no offence under Section 406, Indian renal Code,    can possibly be made out. Therefore, it was argued    that even accepting the first information reports as they do not and indeed cannot disclose a    cognizable offence under Section 406. The petitioners, therefore, seek the quashing of the proceedings - forthwith    rather    than being obliged to go through the    tortuous mill of a police investigation or the consequent criminal trial." "25.    Now apart from the principle, the    most ancient texts of Hindu Law have always been categoric that dowry, as commonly understood, was stridhana and thus in the exclusive ownership of the bride." "26. Now once it is so held that articles of dowry and traditional presents given at the wedding are owned by the bride individually    in her    own right, then one fails to see how    by the mere fact of her bringing the same into    her husband's or parents-in-law's household, would forth with divest her of the ownership thereof. Separate and individual right to property of the wife therein cannot vanish into thin air the    moment    the threshold of the matrimonial home is crossed. To say that at that point - of    time she would cease to own such property altogether and the title therein would pass to her husband or in any case she would lose half of her right therein and become merely a joint owner of the same,    with the family of her husband, does    not appear to    me as even remotely warranted either by the statute, principles or logic. No such marriage hazard against the wife can be implied in law.
Once she owns property exclusively, she would continue to hold and own    it as    such despite marriage    and coverture and the factum    of entering the matrimonial home.. "
"35. To    conclude on this aspect, I find nothing in the codification    of Hindu Law    which    in any    way abolishes the concept of    stridhana or the right of a Hindu wife    to exclusive individual ownership. Indeed the resultant effect of such enactments is to put the Hindu female wholly at par with the Hindu male, if not at    a higher pedestal    with regard to individual ownership of the property."

40. Now    having held as above    that Hindu wife can exclusively own and hold    property including her dowry and traditional presents given at the wedding,    the decks are    cleared for tackling the core question posed at the very outset. What indeed    is the    true legal relationship of the husband and wife qua the property individually owned by each within the four walls of the matrimonial home?    Does the wife stand entrusted with the property belonging to her husband individually and vice versa    the husband stands entrusted with    such property vesting in the exclusive ownership of    the wife? It is the answer to this    question which in essence would    determine the    attraction    and applicability of    Section 405,    I.P.C    betwixt    the spouses.."

"41. It bears 'repetition that the question herein has to be examined against the backdrop of    the matrimonial home. What truly is the concept and essence thereof had come up for exhaustive consideration earlier before a Full Bench in Kailash Vati v. Ayodhia Parkash, ILR (1977) 1 Punj. & Har. 642 in the context of Hindu Law itself. It is, therefore, apt to refer to the authoritative enunciation therein:- "To    my mind, the idea of the matrimonial home appears to lie at the very centre of the concept of marriage in all civilised societies. It is indeed around    it that generally the marriage tie revolves. The home epitomizes the finer nuances of the marital status.    The bundle of    indefinable rights and duties which bind the husband and the wife can perhaps be    best understood only in the context of their living together in the marital home The significance of the conjugal home in the marriage tie is indeed so patent that it would perhaps be wasteful    to elaborate the 8 same at any great    length. Indeed,    the marital status and the conjugal home have been almost used as interchangeable terms." and "To summarise, I have attempted to show by reference to Anglo-American Jurisprudence that the a concept of the marital home lies at the very centre of    the idea of marriage in all    civilised societies. Perhaps    from primeval times when human    beings lived sheltered in subterranean caves    to the    modern day when many    live perched in    flats in high rise apartments within    the megapolis,    the husband    and the wife    have always hankered for a place which may be their very own and which they    may call a home. The innumerable mutual obligations and rights which stem from    the living together of man and wife are undoubtedly beyond    any precise definition    and stand epitomized by the concept of the matrimonial home."

In the light of the above it would be    farcical to assume that despite the factum of a marriage and a common matrimonial home the two Spouses would stand in a kind of a formal relationship where each is entrusted with or has been passed dominion    over the exclusive property of the other. Rather it appears to me that the conjugal relationship and the existence of a matrimonial home automatically obviates any such hyper-technicalities of an entrustment or dominion over property.    It seems inapt to conceive the relationship as a day-to-day entrustment of the property of the husband to the    custody of the wife or vice versa of the property of the wife to the husband. The matrimonial home so long as it subsists presumes a jointness    of custody and possession by the spouses of their individual as also of their joint properties which can not be divided by any    metaphorical line. In a homely metaphor in    the context of the modern commercialised world it has been said    that the marriage relationship is not one of "I and You limited" but that of "We limited". Whilst the law    undoubtedly now clearly recognises    the individual ownership of property    by the    husband    and wife, the necessary assumption in law, therefore, would be that during the existence or even the imminent break up the matrimonial home the concept of jaintness of possession therein    seems to be a    paramount one.    The inevitable presumption during the existence or    the imminent break up of the matrimonial home therefore is one of joint possession of the spouses    which might perhaps be    dislodged by the special terms of a written contract. However,    to be precise this presumption of joint possession of properties within the matrimonial home can subsist only as long as the matrimonial home subsists or on the immediate break up thereof." "42-43. The aforesaid position seems to be well borne out by a homely example which was rightly advanced by Mr. Bhandare on behalf of the petitioners. It    was submitted that where a husband entrusts    a specific amount to    a wife    for paying the school fees of their children but in a shopping spree she converts the same into sarees for herself,    would    she thereby become liable to    breach of trust under    Section 406, Indian Penal Code? The answer would obviously appear to be in the negative. Similarly where a husband misuses or even appropriates any property exclusively belonging to his wife within the matrimonial home he hardly comes within the ambit    of criminality    under Section    406, Indian Penal Code. Usually if not invariably where the husband is the bread winner he brings home the month's wages and bands    them over to the wife to be spent on the family. Would it be possible to say that if she use the same for herself and even against the consent of her husband she would be committing a criminal breach of trust? Obviously the answer would appear to be in the negative."

"44. One may now turn precisely to the language of the Code itself. Sec. 405 is in the following terms:-

"405. 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 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."

It is well-setted that    from a    legal contract, or violation of direction of law,    the entrustment of property or dominion over property are the    per- requisites    for the applicability of the aforesaid provision. Once it is held as above, that property within the    matrimonial home is in the joint possession and custody (despite rights of the individual ownership therein) then these very per-requisites of entrustment or dominion over property    cannot be easily satisfied betwixt the spouses inter se. It is indeed well-settled that the very concept of the jointness of possession and custody would rule out the entrustment or dominion over property betwixt such joint custodians. In line with the    concept of joint ownership where    the possession of one joint owner is    deemed    to be    the possession of all, the analogy,is to be extended that existence of the property    within the matrimonial home rises a presumption that both the husband the wife are in possession thereof jointly and not that each one has entrusted his exclusive property    to the    custody of other. Subscribing    to the    latter view would be    both overly hypertechnical and subversive of the    very concept of    marriage, the    matrimonial home and    the inevitable mutual    trust which conjugality necessarily involves."

"45. It is obviously because of the afore said legal position and this inarticulate peremise underlying the same that    the learned counsel for the State and the complainants were    unable to cite even a single case of conviction for criminal breach of trust betwixt husband and wife. Even when pointedly asked, counsel    conceded that    despite    the diligent research    neither under the Indian Penal Code, nor under the analogous provisions of English law could they lay their hands for over a century and a half on any case where such a conviction had been upheld. This paucity, rather    the total absence of precedent, indirectly buttresses the view I have expressed above on principle and the statutory provisions. An analogy in their context may well be drawn from    the Law of Partnership. However, at the very outset I would notice that the position is not identical because partnership envisages    a joint or co-ownership of partnership property whereas in a conjugal relationship, as shown above, the    spouses may well be    the individual    and exclusive    owners    of their respective    properties. Nevertheless a marked similarity    therein is that in partnership, co-ownership    necessarily    connotes a jointness    of possession    of partnership properties whilst the    same position    inheres in the    matrimonial home where    the spouses are deemed to be    jointly in possession and custody. Now, barring some ancient notes of discordance, it seems to be now well accepted that a partner cannot be held guilty of    criminal breach of trust qua    partnership property except by    virtue of a special agreement    either written or    conclusively established. This    had always been so in English    law until it was specifically and altered by Statute 31 and 32 Victoria c. 116 and it is now governed by    the special provisions of the same and    subsequent legislation. In India, however, in the absence of any statutory change,    the legal position would continue to be the same. This came up for pointed consideration before a Full Bench of five Judges in Bhuban Mohan Das v. Surendra Mohan Das, AIR 1951    Cal, 69. The relief sought therein of quashing the proceedings under S. 406, Indian Penal Code, betwixt partners, was granted whilst holding that a charge under S. 406, Indian Penal Code cannot be framed against a person who, according to the complainant, is a    partner with    him and is accused of the offence in respect of property belonging to    them    as partners.    P.B. Mukharji,    J. in    his concurring judgment observed as under (Para 46) : "The question here is of much broader application and of a more fundamental nature. Its fundamen-

tal nature    is this that the very conception of partner ship precludes possibility of entrustment or dominion of the partnership property by one partner as against the other    and,    therefore, precludes any possible operation of the crime under Section 406 Penal Code, of criminal breach of trust    by one partner against    the other in respect of the partnership property." The aforesaid view has been expressly referred to and approved by their Lordships in Velji    Raghavji v. State of Maharashtra,(1) with the following added observations    (at pp. 1435-36) :-

"... Every partner has    dominion over    property by reason of the fact that he is a partner. This is a kind of dominion which every owner of property has over his property. out it is not dominion    of this kind which satisfies    the requirements of S.405. In order to establish `entrustment of dominion' over property to an accused person the mere existence of that person's dominion over property is not enough.    It must be further shown that his dominion    was the result of entrustment. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Harris, C.J., the prosecution must establish    that dominion over the assets    or a particular asset of the partnership was, by a special agreement    between    the parties entrusted    to the    accused person.    If in    the absence of    such a    special agreement partner receives money belonging to the partnership he cannot be said to have received it in a fiduciary    capacity or in other words cannot be    held to    have been 'entrusted' with dominion over partnership properties. " If that is so in the partnership relation it appears to me that    it would be more so in the conjugal relationship with regard to the property within the matrimonial home." "46..... The nature, character and the incident of property within the matrimonial home, so    long as the marriage subsists,    seem to be such that except    by a special written agreement, no entrustment or dominion etc. Of the individual property of the spouses to each other can    b e presumed. Equally,    herein the specific and ascertainable (I) A.T.R. 1965 S.C. 1433 property of each spouse within the matrimonial home can , be so equivocal    and problematic as to oust    the requisite mens rea with consequent criminality    with regard thereto until the    title to such    property is clearly and specifically established. If the civil remedy seems to be adequate betwixt partners, during the subsistence of partnership there is no reason why it would not equally be    so betwixt spouses in an existing matrimonial home during the subsistence of the conjugal relationship. As already    referred to, apart from the civil remedy under the    general    law, added provisions exist in this    context under S.27 of    the Hindu Marriage Act buttressed    by the procedural provisions of 0.32-A of the Code of Civil Procedure." "47. In    view of the above, it would    be equally untenable to hold that either the desertion or the expulsion one of the spouses from the matrimonial home would result in entrusting dominion over the property belonging to the other so as to bring the case within the ambit    of this    pre-requisite under S.405, Indian Penal Code. The joint custody and possession    once established would    thereafter exclude either express entrustment or the passing of    dominion over    the property. It was    rightly    argued    that if an irate husband or    wife walks out from the matrimonial home in a    huff, this cannot constitute    an entrustment or dominion over the property to the other. Consequently, unless a special written agreement to the contrary can be established, the strongest presumption arises that during the existence and immediately    after    the crumbling    of the matrimonial home, there was in essence, a joint possession and custody of the property of the spouses therein, including dowry and traditional presents,    which would    preclude the    essentials entrustment of dominion over the property which form the corner-stone of criminality under S.405, Indian Penal Code."

"49. Equally the common use and enjoyment of certain articles of dowry and traditional presents, by the other members of a joint family    with the leave    and licence of    a Hindu wife, cannot    have the effect of extending the jointness of control and custody of the couple to undefined and unreasonable limits. Consequently, there is no reason to    assume that the mere use or enjoyment of dowry by other members of the household, would have the effect of    passing the possession and control thereof Jointly to the Hindu Undivided Family a such." "50. In the aforesaid context, pointed reference must be made to the opening word 'whoever' of S.405 of the Code to highlight that the criminal law does not take ken of any proximity of relationship for the offence of breach of    trust. "Whoever" would include    within    its ambit the parents-in-law, the brothers-in-law, sisters- in-law (and other close relations of the husband) of a Hindu wife    provided that    the basic ingredients of entrustment or passing of    dominion over    her separate individual property stands fully satisfied. Apart from the peculiarity of the conjugal relationship and the consequent    sharing of the matrimonial home,    the existence of the blood relationship of the parties does not seem to be relevant    for the applicability or otherwise of S.406 of the Code, Since the other members of the Hindu Joint family, to which the    husband may belong, would not be covered by    the presumption of jointness    of custody v    and possession of their individual properties by the spouses alone, they cannot by the mere fact of kinship be excluded from the scope of ss. 405 and 406 of the Code."

"56. To    conclude, it necessarily follows from the aforesaid discussion that    the very concept of    the matrimonial home cannotes a jointness of possession and custody by    the spouses even with regard to the movable properties exclusively owned by each of    them. It is, therefore, inapt to view    the same in view of    the conjugal relationship as involving any entrustment or passing of    dominion over    property day-to-day by    the husband to the wife or    vice versa. Consequently, barring a special written agreement to the contrary, no question of any entrustment or dominion over property would normally arise during coverture or its imminent break-up. There fore, the very essential pre-requisites and the core ingredients of the offence under S.406 of the Penal Code would be lacking in a charge of criminal breach of trust of property by one spouse against the other. Inevitably, therefore, the purported allegations of breach of trust betwixt husband and wife    so long as the conjugal relation ship lasts and the matrimonial home subsists, cannot constitute    an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, subject to any special written agreement. Equally, as against the close relations of the husband, no facile presumption of entrustment and dominion over the dowry can be raised prims facie and this inevitably has to be by a subsequent conscious act of volition which must be specifically    alleged    and conclusively established by proof. Lastly, because of the definition in S. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the offences under the said Act cannot come within the ambit of S. 406 of the Indian Penal Code as these cannot stand together on the same set of facts." "57. Hence the answer (to the question) posed at the very outset is rendered in the affirmative.    The bond of matrimony, therefore, bar the spectre of the criminal breach of trust    qua the property of    the spouses at    the very threshold of the matrimonial home. It cannot    enter its hallowed precincts except through the back door of    a special written contract to    the contrary with regard to such property."

I    have extracted    above    several    passages from    the Judgment of the learned judges of the Full Bench in Vinod Kumar's case (supra) since I share their view and concern for peace and harmony in matrimonial homes and feel that the learned Single Judge who has quashed the wife's complaint in the present case was justified in relying heavily upon that judgment of the Full Bench. In these circumstances, 1 think that in    the absence of a separate agreement    and specific entrustment by    the wife to the husband and of his relations and vice versa of the property of the husband to the wife and or    her relation, it would    not be    possible to draw an inference of entrustment of custody or dominion over    the property of one spouse to the other and his or her relations so as to attract the stringent provisions of s.406 I.P.C. The offense of criminal breach of trust is cognizable and non-bailable and punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years or with fine or with both. In the absence of such a separate agreement for specific entrustment of the property of either spouse the appropriate remedy would appear to be by way of a civil suit where there    is scope for the parties to    the marriage coming    together at the instance of relations, elders and well-wishers and patching up their differences. Entertaining complaints of the irate wife or husband against the husband or wife without even an allegation of a specific and separate agreement constituting    entrustment of    the property of the wife or the husband would have disastrous effects and consequences on the peace    and harmony which ought to prevail in matrimonial homes. It is seen from para 45 of-the judgment in    Vinod Kumar's case (supra) that in spite of diligent research no instance of any case of successful prosecution    of the husband of wife at    the instance of the wife or the husband could be brought to the notice of the learned Judges. It may be stated that none was brought to the notice of this Court either in the course of the arguments in this    appeal. This would show that    the spouses had not lightly rushed in the past    to criminal courts with complaints of criminal breach of trust against the other spouses though in the day-to-day life there must have been numerous instances where the wife had used the property or cash of the husband for purposes different from the one    for which they were given by    the husband to be applied by the wife and vice-versa. I am anxious that no light-hearted change should be brought about in-the position and that the minimum requirement in such cases is a specific separate agreement whereby the    property of the wife to husband was entrusted to the husband or wife and or his or her close relations. In the absence of such    a specific separate agreement in the complaint, in the present case, I am of    the opinion that the    learned Single Judge    was perfectly justified in following the decision    of the Full Bench in Vinod Kumar s case (supra) and quashing the wife's complaint filed against the husband and his close relations. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

In view of the majority    decision, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the complaint filed    by the    appellant is restored. The accused may now be summoned and put on trial in accordance with law.

S.R.     Appeal allowed