Absence of specific entrustment or dominion over identified articles precludes framing of charges under Section 406 IPC.

The Petitioner (wife) filed an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC against her husband and parents-in-law (Respondents 2-4).

On 24.06.2024, the Metropolitan Magistrate directed the framing of charges under Section 498A/34 IPC but discharged the Respondents under Section 406 IPC.

The Petitioner’s revision petition challenging the discharge was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge via a common judgment dated 22.01.2026.

The Petitioner moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the Courts below ignored evidence of stridhan entrustment and applied a "mini-trial" standard at the stage of charge.

1. Whether the material on record prima facie disclosed the ingredients of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation required to charge the Respondents under Section 406 IPC.

2. Whether the Revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction by applying an erroneously high standard of proof or conducting a "mini-trial" at the stage of framing charges.

The Court applied Section 406 of the IPC (punishment for criminal breach of trust), which requires prima facie evidence of entrustment of property or dominion over it, followed by dishonest misappropriation or conversion.

Section 528 of the BNSS (inherent powers of the High Court) and Article 227 of the Constitution, noting that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked for a "second revisional examination" unless there is perversity, patent illegality, or failure to consider material evidence.

At the stage of charge, the test is whether a prima facie case exists, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court observed that while the Petitioner provided a composite list of articles, the documents (including a note dated 09.11.2020) failed to establish a clear entrustment of specific articles to each individual Respondent.

The Court rejected the argument that the lower courts conducted a "mini-trial," noting they merely examined if the essential legal ingredient of "entrustment" was present.

It found that the Revisional Court had properly considered the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the partial return of articles and the list provided to the CAW Cell, but correctly concluded these did not prove dominion over valuables like jewellery by all Respondents.

Since the lower courts gave reasoned findings and the Petitioner was merely seeking a different inference from the same material, there was no ground for interference.

It held that there was no perversity or patent illegality in the discharge of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 406 IPC, as the material on record did not meet the prima facie threshold for entrustment.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the legality of the discharge and not an expression of opinion on the merits of the remaining trial under Section 498A IPC.