9\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. N0. 154 OF 2011 v PETITIONERS ACCUED PERSONS RESPONDENTS COMPLAINANT 1. 2. 3. 4. VERSUS 1. 2. 1. Umesh Shukla S/o Prabhat Shukla, aged about 40 years; Prabhat Shukla S/o Jagdish Shukla, aged about 75 years; Ramkali Shukla W/o Prabhat Shukla, aged about 65 years; All R/o Parijat Colony M-2, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). Dinesh Shukla S/o Prabhat Shukla, aged about 44 years, R/o Shailendra Apartment, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur (C.G.) The State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Smt. Pragya Shukla D/o Braj Bhushan Pandey W/o Umesh Shukla, aged about 39 years, At R/o Bade Mathpara Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482^)F THE COD^OFLCRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri U.K.S. Chandel, P.L. for the State/respondent No.l. Respondent No. 2 not noticed. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 18/03/2011) By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 20/12/2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in criminal revision No. 17/10 affirming the order dated 15/3/2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh in criminal case No. 724/09 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh has framed the '•s charge punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No. 1/husband and relatives of husband of complainant, 2. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri U.K.S. Chandel, P.L. for the State/respondent No.l are heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without considerinj the material collected in charge sheet Court below has framed the charge and thereby committed an illegality. Present petitioners have right to return the Stridhan through transport but same has been refused by the respondent No. 2, only retention of Stridhan does not constitute offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that most of the allegation has been labeled against the petitioner No. 1 i.e. husband of the complainant. Complainant has not alleged substantially against the petitioners No. 2 to 4 therefore, continuance of criminal proceeding and framing of the charge against the petitioners No. 2 to 4 are groundless . and abuse of the process of the Court, 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in the matter of Neelu Chopra SB Anr. v. Bharti1 in which Supreme Court has held that in absence of any substantive allegation against relative of the husband relating to the charges of Sections 406 & 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, continuance of criminal proceeding against in-laws would be abused of process of law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 opposed the petition. ' 2009 AIR SCW 6683 --'•^--^•^: '»*;.. ~^^' •s 7. Order impugned, copy of charge 85 complaint and other documents reveal that all pefitioners have retained and refused to return Stridhan of complainant i.e. respondent No. 2 even after making the demand thereafter she has lodged complaint and case has been registered at the instance of trial Court. 8. In order to frame the charge for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code relating to the Stridhan, prosecution or complainant is required to produce raaterial prima facie to show that Stridhan i.e. property given to bride at the time of marriage or after her niarriage has been retained by the husband of the bride or their relatives and has refused to return the same. In the present case, material collected on behalf of the complainant/prosecution is sufficient for drawing such inference against all the petitioners therefore, the case of Neelu Chopra 8s Anr. (Supra) is distinguishable on the ground of facts in which allegations were mostly against only husband but in the present case, coraplainant has made allegations against all the petitioners therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order framing charge or dismissing the revision filed on behalfofthe petitioners. Consequeatly, petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge ^v