Clarification for ipc 406

Basically the women whose ornaments have been retained by the accused forcibly. In this situation the following points have been raised :-

01.      Whether the ornaments were snatched and retained

02        Whether the ornaments were just refused to hand over and has been retained

03       Whether the ornaments were given by the women to the accused and later on he refused that the same has been used or sell

04       Whether the ornaments were just retained on account of dissolution amongst the family members

the situation in the circumstance are different, therefore, it call civil and criminal cases as case may be. you did not clear in your question in which circumstance he stopped the istridhan of your mother. Therefore, the question is not being answered

Rgds

Hello Sir,

its option (2)..i replace the word ORNAMENTS with LOCKER-KEYS...pls let me know if any further inputs r needed.

Dear Divya,

As Advocate Deepak Kapoor rightly pointed out, you have not clearly made out the circumstances of your case, instead you have come out with another querry with no head or tail; hence be clear in what you want to clarify or the relief sought for

Sir,

the issue is my uncle has retained my mother's locker-keys since several years...Locker has my mother's gold & she is also the owner as per RBI, Banl policies etc.....After waiting for so long, i filed a private complaint and one of the sections put was IPC 406 & the judge dismissed it saying that "uncle has not converted the property to his use" and the offence is not complete as he hasnt misappropriated the property.....

Hence i had put this query.....IPC 406 deals with 2 parts....first is retain property & second part is property is converted or disposed off .....Thatz where i had put the query, because the acused has retained the locker-keys he is supposed to give it back to the lawful owner but he does not. Hence only option is "IPC 406""  but the law provision backfires.

Thankyou

As per your query it is civil case. No offense u/s 406 is made out. further if your mother is owner of the locker then she is entitle to get the other key from banker or as they have to take the necessary step after completion of Banker formalities.

The good sense is prevail upon you

Rgds

Agree with Mr.Kapoor....

yes i agree with the views of experts...

My main cross-question is :

There are 1000's of 406 cases filed by women when husband and inlaws retain the woman's property (stridhan)..That retainment is criminal & it comes under IPC 406 & entire police & judicial force supports it.

What is the difference in my state....Here im saying that accused has kept my mother's bank locker-keys with him & this locker has my mother's stridhan..I have all evidences to prove my mother's ownership of locker-contents..

Why is there a difference in tackling other 406 stridhan cases & my cases....I would appreciate if i get to know reasons of logical disconnect between the two cases.

Thankyou

@ divya.
u did not mention operating terms of locker. to operate locker, signature is required 1] anyone of us  or  2] both of us.

however in dispute, it is always advisable to open the locker in presence of all signatory.

term is "anyone of us"..

apex courts r clear, RBI locker policy is clear, bank locker policy is clear that incase of either-or: only the survivor is the owner of the locker contents...infact legal heirs cant even raise RTI queries in whatso manner to find out any detail related to the locker.

ownership of locker and ownership of content therein are two different things. nw a dys there is a slow death of TRUST and people tends to believe wht LAW says and not ETHICS.

yes they may differ....but rarely a court will say a yes that b will keep his jewelery in a's locker...is "a" insane to keep his jewelery in a woman's locker....criminal courts go with evidence.....tomorrow any other person may say, i have kept my jewelry in "locker of c"...but this person has to lead evidence as to what, when and how....mere claims raise doubt and criminal courts go beyond doubt...

people who claim have to make courts believe as per the evidence act & not the lawful owners

if acts, guidelines and apex courts r clear - we cant ignore the rules of law made by judiciary....