Stridhana as exclusive wife's property may support criminal breach of trust when husband refuses return on demand

Stridhana is treated as the wife's exclusive property, and entrustment of such articles to the husband does not create joint ownership or a partnership interest. If, on demand, the husband dishonestly refuses to return the property, the allegations may disclose criminal breach of trust where entrustment and subsequent misappropriation or refusal are prima facie shown. The note also states that limitation runs from the alleged demand and refusal, and that at the cognizance stage a court must confine itself to prima facie averments rather than conduct a trial-like assessment of evidence when considering quashing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether stridhana entrusted to the husband and dishonestly retained on demand can constitute criminal breach of trust; (ii) whether the complaint was barred by limitation; (iii) whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint in exercise of inherent powers.

Issue (i): Whether stridhana entrusted to the husband and dishonestly retained on demand can constitute criminal breach of trust.

Analysis: Stridhana remains the exclusive property of the wife. Gifts received before marriage, at marriage, at farewell, or thereafter from relations are her absolute property, and the husband has no proprietary title or joint ownership in it. Entrustment of such property or dominion over it to the husband does not create a partnership or joint estate. If, on demand, the husband dishonestly refuses to return the articles, the ingredients of criminal breach of trust are attracted, provided entrustment and subsequent misappropriation or refusal are prima facie shown.

Conclusion: Yes. Refusal by the husband to return stridhana entrusted to him can amount to criminal breach of trust under the Penal Code.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was barred by limitation.

Analysis: For an offence punishable with imprisonment up to three years, the prescribed period of limitation is three years. The complaint specifically alleged demand and refusal within the limitation period, and it was filed within three years of that refusal. The Court held that the complaint had to be read on its own averments, and the limitation objection could not be sustained on a selective reading of the evidence recorded at the preliminary stage.

Conclusion: No. The complaint was within limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint in exercise of inherent powers.

Analysis: At the stage of cognizance and issuance of process, the Court is concerned only with whether the complaint discloses a prima facie offence, and it is not permissible to sift evidence as if conducting the trial. The allegations disclosed entrustment of stridhana and refusal to return it, and therefore a prima facie case existed. The High Court exceeded the proper limits of its inherent jurisdiction by quashing the proceedings.

Conclusion: No. The complaint could not be quashed at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the quashing order was set aside, and the criminal complaint was directed to proceed in accordance with law from the stage at which it had been interrupted.

Ratio Decidendi: Stridhana remains the wife's exclusive property, and where its entrustment to the husband and his subsequent refusal to return it are prima facie shown, the allegations may disclose criminal breach of trust; at the stage of cognizance or quashing, the Court must confine itself to prima facie averments and cannot undertake a trial-like appreciation of evidence.

---