JUDGMENT
S.D. Bajaj, J.
1. Sarwan Singh, father of bride Surinder Kaur, lodged against her husband Rajinder Singh, her parents-in-law, sister and brother-in-law of her husband First Information Report No. 453 on 29th December, 1986 under Sections 406/498A of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana, for criminal breach of trust committed by them in respect of her dowry articles and the inhuman cruel treatment meeted out to her by all the five accused aforesaid in her matrimonial home at Ludhiana after marriage.
2. All the five persons arrayed as accused filed in this Court Criminal Misc. No. 4601 of 1987 for quashing the First Information Report but got it dismissed as withdrawn on 28th November, 1988 on the ground that instead of filing it against the wife, they would file it against the State; at whose instance they were being prosecuted. Hence Criminal Misc. No. 9245-M of 1988 filed against the State of Punjab.
3. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that there is no allegation in the First Information Report about the entrustment of specific articles of dowry to anyone from amongst the Five accused persons. The argument is of no avail because all the five accused admittedly attended the marriage on 11th December, 1982 less than 7 years ago and the articles of dowry were entrusted to them jointly after the performance of marriage before they returned with the bride to her matrimonial home in Ludhiana after marriage.
4. Secondly it was urged that the date of demand for return of dowry articles having not been specified in the First Information Report the claim is obviously barred by time. There is no merit in this argument as well. Bride is alleged to have been turned out of her matrimonial home on 23rd June, 1983. Demand for return of dowry articles could have been made and must have obviously been made thereafter. Several demands and not one are alleged to have been made by the author of the First Information Report and the bride in this regard. The First Information Report was recorded on 29th December, 1986. It must have been ascertained by the police in the course of investigation as to when these demands were made. Since the challan has already been filed in Court it would be for the learned trial court to decide whether the claim under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is within time. Arguments based on the observations made in Gurcharan Singh v. Lakhwinder Kaur and Anr., Criminal Misc. No. 809 M of 1986 decided on 9th March, 1987 do not enure for the benefit of the petitioner on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case at this stage.
5. In terms of the observations made in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 and State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors., AIR 1982 Supreme Court 449, prima facie commission of offences attributed to them by the accused-petitioners having been held by the learned trial court to have been made out against the accused-petitioners from the allegation’s obtaining in the First Information Report, no case for quashing of the First Information Report and resultant proceedings based thereon is made out. Dismissed.