The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has quashed the summoning order and entire criminal proceedings against a woman and four others in a case involving allegations of theft and criminal breach of trust. The Court observed that a wife is the absolute owner of her ‘streedhan’ and that a husband or in-laws have no control over it.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Chawan Prakash, while allowing the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., set aside the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 8240 of 2018 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar.
Background of the Case
The marriage of Applicant No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized on April 19, 2012. According to the applicants, sufficient dowry was provided, but the husband and his family were dissatisfied and subjected the wife to harassment.
In September 2018, the wife lodged an FIR (Case Crime No. 53 of 2018) under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and his family. Subsequently, she filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was granted by the court in May 2022, directing the husband to pay ₹4,000 per month to her and ₹1,000 to their son.
As a “counterblast,” the husband filed a complaint alleging that on September 29, 2018, the wife along with other family members entered his house and took away ₹6,400, ornaments worth approximately ₹1,50,000, and household articles. Based on this, the Magistrate summoned the applicants under Sections 323, 504, and 406 IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the applicants argued that no offence under Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) was made out. They contended that the wife is the absolute owner of her ‘streedhan’ and the household articles were, at best, jointly used. They further argued that the Magistrate passed the summoning order in a “mechanical manner” without applying judicial mind.
Conversely, the counsel for the husband (Opposite Party No. 2) submitted that the Magistrate’s order was well-reasoned and based on material evidence, including statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He alleged that the wife had indeed taken away the mentioned cash and valuables from his house.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court examined the definition of ‘Criminal Breach of Trust’ under Section 405 IPC and its punishment under Section 406 IPC. The Court noted that the offence is only made out if property is entrusted to someone and that person dishonestly misappropriates it.
Regarding the ownership of property in a marriage, the Court held:
“It is well settled principle of law that the properties given to a woman before marriage, at the time of marriage or thereafter are her ‘streedhan’ property. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. The husband or other in-laws has no control over her ‘streedhan’ property.”
The Court further clarified that:
“‘streedhan’ property does not become a joint property of wife and husband. In other words, it can be said that wife is an absolute owner of the ‘streedhan’ property.”
The Court observed that the remaining allegations under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 504 (intentional insult) were “general in nature.” It found that the Magistrate failed to consider the legal definitions provided in the IPC and passed the order in a “very casual manner.”
Decision
The Court concluded that no offence under Section 406 IPC was made out against the wife. Finding the summoning order to be against the facts of the case, the High Court allowed the application.
“The order of summoning dated 17.11.2022… is set aside and entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Anamika Tiwari and 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Case No: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 37453 of 2024
- Bench: Justice Chawan Prakash
- Date: March 16, 2026
