False 406 IPC Case | Wife’s Stridhan Not Returned, So She Prosecuted Husband & Entire Family? Delhi High Court Quashes Case

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that a general allegation about non-return of a woman’s stridhan cannot automatically sustain a prosecution under Section 406 IPC against every member of her matrimonial family. The Court partly allowed the husband's petition and quashed the Section 406 IPC proceedings against him, while keeping the prosecution under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC alive.

Justice Madhu Jain was dealing with a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC. The petitioner is a medical practitioner and US citizen who has been residing in the United States since 1995.

The parties married in October 2007. The wife later lodged a matrimonial complaint alleging cruelty, monetary demands and non-return of jewellery. The FIR was registered in June 2019. During investigation, however, no prima facie evidence of dowry demand was found against the petitioner’s brother, sister-in-law and another brother. The petitioner himself was charge-sheeted, without arrest, under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

The husband sought quashing and argued, among other things, that the criminal case was delayed and that the parties had not met for years. The wife opposed the petition and maintained that her allegations were specific. The High Court found that the allegations under Section 498A IPC, if taken at face value at this stage, disclosed a prima facie case and involved disputed questions of fact requiring evidence.

On limitation, the Court noted that Sections 498A and 406 IPC carry imprisonment up to three years and ordinarily attract a three-year limitation period under Section 468 CrPC. However, the petitioner’s long residence outside India brought Section 470(4)(a) CrPC, which excludes periods of absence from India while computing limitation, into consideration. The Court did not have his complete travel record.

The Court also noted that Section 473 CrPC permits a court to take cognisance even after the limitation period where delay is properly explained or where doing so is necessary in the interests of justice. Therefore, the limitation issue could not automatically end the remaining prosecution at this stage.

The High Court then separately examined the Section 406 IPC allegation. It explained that criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property, or dominion over it, followed by dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal. Importantly, these ingredients must apply to the person sought to be prosecuted.

In this case, the wife’s own complaint stated that the jewellery had been handed over to the petitioner’s sister-in-law to be kept in her locker. There was no allegation that the jewellery was later entrusted to the husband or came under his control. Nor was there a specific allegation that its return was demanded from him and that he dishonestly refused to return, convert or dispose of it.

The Court further clarified that simply alleging that jewellery or other articles were purchased, or that some items were gifted to the husband, would not establish “entrustment” unless it was alleged that the wife retained ownership and placed those items with him in trust. Section 34 IPC also could not fill this fundamental gap without material showing a common intention regarding the alleged retention or misappropriation.

Referring to an earlier Delhi High Court decision, the Court laid down the key principle:

“The principle emerging from the aforesaid decision is that a general allegation of non-return of stridhan cannot sustain a prosecution under Section 406 of IPC against every member of the matrimonial family.”

The Court found that even if the prosecution material was accepted completely, the necessary ingredients of entrustment, dominion and dishonest dealing were missing against the husband. Allowing him to continue facing the Section 406 IPC prosecution merely because of the matrimonial relationship would therefore amount to an abuse of the court process.

The judgment also relied on the settled principle that a criminal case can be partly quashed. A High Court need not either quash the entire charge-sheet or allow every offence to continue. Each alleged offence has to be tested against its own legal ingredients.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings against Husband only to the extent of Section 406 IPC. The prosecution under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC will continue in accordance with law. The Trial Court was also directed to independently decide the limitation issue at the appropriate stage.

Significantly, the High Court made it clear that its decision should not be read as a finding that the surviving allegations against the husband have been proved:

“Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the remaining prosecution or as a finding that its ingredients stand established against the petitioner.”

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Husband faced Section 406 IPC even though the wife’s own complaint said the jewellery was handed to his sister-in-law, not him.
• Being a husband cannot automatically make a man criminally responsible for stridhan allegedly held by another family member.
• Family relationship cannot replace evidence. Entrustment, control and dishonest dealing must be specifically shown against the accused.
• The Delhi High Court quashed Section 406 against the husband because the basic ingredients of criminal breach of trust were missing.
• Yet the husband’s ordeal is not over. Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC continues, showing how even partial relief can come after years of facing criminal proceedings.