Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court quashing a criminal complaint filed by a Hindu wife against her husband under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal breach of trust. The parties were married on 7 July 1973 at Lucknow according to Hindu rites and had three children. The wife alleged that she was treated with cruelty and driven out of the matrimonial home on 24/25 July 1978 along with the children. She claimed that jewellery, cash, and household goods given to her at the time of marriage and farewell constituted her stridhana and were entrusted to the husband and his father for safe custody. When her attempts at restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance failed, she made a formal demand on 5 December 1987 for return of the stridhana, which the husband refused. She subsequently filed a private complaint on 10 September 1990. The Magistrate recorded her statement under Section 200 CrPC, took cognizance, and issued process. The husband then moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, which quashed the proceedings on two grounds: that the complaint did not disclose any offence and that it was barred by limitation because a demand was made in October 1986 and the complaint was filed more than three years later. A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a three-judge Bench to reconsider the ratio in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant wife contended that stridhana was her exclusive property, that the husband was merely a custodian, and that his refusal to return it constituted a continuing offence under Section 406 IPC, so the complaint was not time-barred. The respondent husband argued that the complaint was barred by limitation, that no application for condonation of delay was filed, and that he had been willing to provide for the daughters and pay maintenance, showing no intent to harass. The Supreme Court examined Hindu personal law and the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Indian Penal Code. It held that the stridhana of a Hindu married woman is her absolute property; the husband has no right or interest in it except in extreme distress and is only a custodian. Living together does not make stridhana joint property or partnership property. Therefore, entrustment of stridhana to the husband does not give him any ownership, and his refusal to return it after demand amounts to criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. The Court also held that the offence is a continuing offence, so the cause of action arises every day of refusal and the complaint was not barred by limitation. It further held that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint at the threshold when the allegations disclosed a prima facie case. The Court reaffirmed the majority view in Pratibha Rani and directed that the criminal proceedings be restored and the trial proceed in accordance with law. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Stridhana - Exclusive Ownership by Hindu Married Woman - Hindu personal law and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 27 - The stridhana of a Hindu married woman is her absolute property over which husband has no right or interest except limited use in extreme distress; husband is merely a custodian. The matrimonial cohabitation does not convert stridhana into joint property or partnership. Held that the wife alone is the absolute owner and can deal with it as she likes (Paras not mentioned). B) Criminal Law - Criminal Breach of Trust - Section 405 and Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Entrustment of stridhana to husband creates dominion over property; refusal to return after demand constitutes criminal breach of trust. The offence is made out if the complaint alleges entrustment and non-return, and the wife is entitled to prove her case at trial. Held that no separate specific agreement of entrustment is necessary (Paras not mentioned). C) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - High Court cannot quash the proceedings under Section 482 if the complaint discloses a prima facie case; factual disputes about entrustment and refusal must be decided at trial. Held that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint (Paras not mentioned). D) Limitation - Continuing Offence - Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Criminal breach of trust by non-return of stridhana is a continuing offence; cause of action arises de die in diem until the property is returned. Therefore, complaint filed in 1990 after demand in 1986/1987 was not barred by limitation. Held that the complaint was not time-barred (Paras not mentioned). E) Precedent - Stare Decisis - Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370 - The majority view in Pratibha Rani that stridhana is exclusive property and refusal to return is criminal breach of trust has stood for over a decade and does not require reconsideration. Held that the ratio is reaffirmed (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether stridhana property of a Hindu married woman is her exclusive property or joint property with her husband; whether husband's refusal to return her stridhana amounts to criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code; whether complaint filed in 1990 after demand in 1986/1987 was barred by limitation or whether the offence is continuing; whether the ratio in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar requires reconsideration
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; Allahabad High Court order quashing criminal proceedings set aside; complaint under Section 406 IPC restored; held that stridhana is exclusive property of Hindu wife, husband is only custodian, refusal to return is criminal breach of trust and a continuing offence; complaint not barred by limitation; ratio in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar reaffirmed; trial directed to proceed.
Law Points
- Stridhana of a Hindu married woman is her exclusive property and husband is only a custodian without joint ownership
- entrustment of stridhana to husband does not create partnership or joint property
- refusal by husband to return stridhana after demand constitutes criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- offence under Section 406 IPC is a continuing offence and limitation runs from each day of refusal
- a criminal complaint disclosing prima facie facts cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC at the threshold
- ratio in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar
- (1985) 2 SCC 370 holds good
