Stridhan remains the wife's exclusive property, and dishonest refusal to return entrusted belongings can constitute criminal breach of trust.

Stridhan of a Hindu married woman remains her absolute property even after it is kept in the matrimonial home or entrusted to the husband or his relations; they hold it in a fiduciary capacity and must return it on demand. Dishonest retention or refusal to return such property can therefore disclose criminal breach of trust, and the availability of a civil remedy does not exclude criminal liability. A complaint alleging entrustment, misappropriation and refusal to return jewellery, clothing and other personal articles cannot be quashed at the threshold if those averments, taken as true, make out the offence. A dissenting view considered the property jointly possessed absent distinct entrustment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a wife's stridhan retained in the custody of the husband or his relations remains her exclusive property so that dishonest retention or refusal to return it can amount to criminal breach of trust; (ii) Whether the complaint alleging such entrustment and misappropriation could be quashed at the threshold under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether a wife's stridhan retained in the custody of the husband or his relations remains her exclusive property so that dishonest retention or refusal to return it can amount to criminal breach of trust.

Analysis: The Court held that stridhan of a Hindu married woman remains her absolute property during coverture. Mere entry into the matrimonial home does not convert it into joint property or create co-ownership in favour of the husband or his relations. If such property is entrusted to the husband or in-laws, they hold it in a fiduciary capacity and are bound to return it on demand. The criminal law governing criminal breach of trust is not displaced by the availability of a civil remedy or by the matrimonial relationship between the parties. Where the complaint alleges entrustment and dishonest refusal to return jewellery, clothing and other personal articles meant for the wife's exclusive use, the ingredients of criminal breach of trust are made out prima facie.

Conclusion: Yes. The allegations were capable of constituting criminal breach of trust; the husband and his relations could be proceeded against.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint alleging such entrustment and misappropriation could be quashed at the threshold under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

Analysis: The complaint had to be examined on its own averments, and at that stage the Court was not to assess the truthfulness of the allegations or weigh possible defences. The pleaded facts, taken at face value, disclosed entrustment, dishonest retention and refusal to return the property. On those averments, the essential ingredients of the offence were present, and the High Court ought not to have short-circuited the prosecution by quashing the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint could not be quashed at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The complaint was restored and the accused were directed to face trial in accordance with law.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinion: Varadarajan J. dissented. He took the view that, absent a specific separate agreement and distinct entrustment, the property within the matrimonial home should be treated as jointly possessed, so that the complaint did not disclose an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the High Court was right in quashing the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Stridhan remains the exclusive property of the wife, and its entrusted custody with the husband or his relations creates a fiduciary obligation; dishonest refusal to return such property can found an offence of criminal breach of trust, and a complaint disclosing these ingredients cannot be quashed merely because the parties are spouses.

---