IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9098 of 2008 1. BALBHADRA SINGH @ BALBHADAR SINGH 2. CHANDRADEO SINGH 3. PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH AND 4. SANDIP KUMAR SINGH Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR & 2. KAMESHWAR SINGH, BINDGAWAN, BARHARA, BHOJPUR. ----------- 3 05.05.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and State, no one appears for Opp. Party No.2. The petitioners pray for quashing order dated 12.1.2008, by which learned Magistrate has rejected their discharge petition filed u/s 245 Cr.P.C. from complaint case no. 487C of 2004 (Tr. No. 687 of 2007) instituted for offences under sections 406/34 I.P.C. The complainant/Opp.party no. 2 states that he fixed marriage of his daughter with petitioner no.3 (son of petitioner no.1) and at the time of Sagai, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, and a golden chain of Rs. 6000/- was given to him in presence of witnesses. However, during the Tilak ceremony, accused persons began to demand Hero Honda Motorcycle and as he could not oblige, they were driven away from the village on the point of gun. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that allegation, if any, would come under the purview of Dowry Prohibition Act and not under section 406 I.P.C. Section 406 I.P.C. speaks of entrustment of property and augurs a legal contract. In the instant case, the question of criminal breach of trust does not arise. Learned counsel submits that there is averment in the complaint that aforesaid money was given to accused side as gift. Counsel for the State submits that at least petitioners should return - 2 - the money and items given to them by complainant for marriage. From perusal of records, it appears that certain money and goods were given by the girl side to the accused side as gift. Subsequently, at the time of Tilak ceremony they further demanded dowry in form of Hero Honda Motorcycle. After going through the allegation and assuming them to be true, no case is made out against the petitioners under section 406 I.P.C., as it does not contain the ingredients of criminal breach of trust. Section 406 of Indian Penal Code supposes that (a) there should be entrustment (b) such entrustment is to be discharged as per law and (c) there should be legal and valid contract. In view of above position, impugned order dated 12.1.2008, by which learned Magistrate has rejected their discharge petition filed u/s 245 Cr.P.C. in Complaint case no. 487C of 2004 (Tr. No. 687 of 2007) instituted for offences under sections 406/34 I.P.C. is set aside and matter is remanded to the court below to proceed in accordance with law. The instant petition stands disposed of. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)