Introduction:
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India, through its Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, quashed the proceedings in the case of Mulkala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3981/2023). This case sheds light on the legal nuances concerning the rights over ‘stridhan’ (a woman's property) and the limitations on who can initiate proceedings for its recovery.
Background of the Case:
The case originates from a dispute over the recovery of 'stridhan' – ornaments given to a woman at the time of her marriage. The complainant, Padala Veerabhadra Rao, lodged an FIR in 2021 against his daughter's former in-laws, alleging they had failed to return the jewelry given at the time of her marriage in 1999. His daughter, who divorced her first husband in 2016 and remarried in 2018, had all marital issues settled through a Separation Agreement at the time of her divorce.
Key Issues:
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the complainant, the father of the woman, had the legal standing to file a complaint for the recovery of his daughter’s ‘stridhan’ when she herself had not initiated any such proceedings. Additionally, the Court examined whether the proceedings initiated by the complainant were legally maintainable given the substantial delay and the lack of authorization from the daughter.
Court's Observations:
Stridhan Rights and Authority: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the established legal position that ‘stridhan’ is the exclusive property of a woman and cannot be claimed by anyone else, including her parents, without her express authorization. The Court cited precedents like Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, which clarify that a woman has full control and authority over her ‘stridhan’. The Court noted that in this case, the complainant's daughter had not authorized her father to act on her behalf to recover her ‘stridhan’.
Delay and Laches: The Court observed that the FIR was filed in 2021, more than five years after the divorce and three years after the complainant's daughter had remarried. The substantial delay in filing the FIR, without satisfactory explanation, rendered the proceedings non-maintainable. The Court emphasized that the object of criminal proceedings is to bring a wrongdoer to justice, not to serve as a tool for harassment.
Ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust: The Court also analyzed the allegations under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with criminal breach of trust. For such a charge to be substantiated, it must be shown that the property was entrusted to the accused and that they dishonestly misappropriated it. In this case, there was no evidence to show that the complainant had entrusted the ‘stridhan’ to the appellants, nor was there any proof of misappropriation.
Lack of Authorization and Mala Fide Intent: The judgment highlighted that the complainant's daughter, who is the rightful owner of the ‘stridhan’, had not authorized her father to initiate proceedings on her behalf. The Court concluded that the FIR appeared to be lodged with an ulterior motive, possibly to harass the former in-laws of the complainant's daughter. Citing Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh, the Court emphasized that the legal system should not be misused for personal vendettas.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, after considering all the facts and legal precedents, quashed the proceedings against the appellants. The judgment reinforces the principle that legal actions concerning ‘stridhan’ must be initiated by the rightful owner or with their express authorization. It also serves as a caution against the misuse of the criminal justice system for personal grievances, especially when there is a significant delay in filing complaints without reasonable justification