JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-Leave granted and appeal heard.

2. By the impugned order, the High Court of Delhi rejected the application of the petitioners/appellants for quashing F.I.R. No. 467 of 1998 registered by the Greater Kailash Police Station in respect of the offence under Section 406 IPC. The informant (Respondent No.2) is the brother s wife of the first appellant by name Rishi Anand presently living in Fairfax, USA and she is the daughter-in-law of the second appellant by name Raj Kumar Anand. The other two accused named in the FIR are the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant. The husband is also living in Fairfax, USA. A son was born out of the wed-lock in April 1996. Even before that, it appears the relations between the respondent and the husband & his family members became strained. Unfortunately, the marital life came to an end within 1-1/2 years after the marriage. It appears that a decree of divorce was granted on an application filed by the husband by the Circuit Court at Fairfax on 10.12.1999. The first respondent lodged a complaint with the Police on 15.1.1997. Although in the first information report, various other offences viz. under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are mentioned, the FIR was registered for an offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. Cognizance was taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Greater Kailash and process for appearance was issued. Non-bailable warrant has also been issued against the first appellant as he failed to appear before the Court on the specified date. At that stage, petitions were filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the appellants herein for quashing the FIR against them. By a brief order dated 7.12.2000 which is assailed in the present appeal, the High Court observed that certain disputed questions regarding return of the articles of the complainant have to be examined at the trial and there is no ground to quash the FIR at this stage.

3. It is the contention of the appellant that the FIR does not disclose the offence under Section 406 and even going by the allegations, there is absolutely no material even prima facie to arraign the appellants as accused in the case. As regards the first appellant who is the husband s brother, it is contended that he came to India to attend the wedding of his brother (Accused No.1) and having attended the wedding on 27th January, 1995, he left for USA the same night and he was unnecessarily implicated in the case. On behalf of the second, it is submitted that the first respondent was in India only for five days after the marriage, she took along with her jewellery and other valuable items as seen from the export certificate filed and whatever remaining articles were left at appellant s home were returned. It is contended that ingredients of offence under Section 406 are lacking vis-a-vis the role ascribed to both the appellants.

4. The High Court observed that the factum of return of articles is under dispute and it can only be examined after trial and that no case has been made out for quashing the FIR. The High Court did not address itself to the crucial question whether the substance of the allegations in the complaint coupled with any other material on record justified the prosecution of the appellants under Section 406 and the Magistrate taking cognizance of the alleged offence. In a recent case S.W. Palanitkar vs. State of Bihar [JT 2001 (9) SC 151] a Bench of this Court consisting of one of us (D.P. Mohapatra, J.) and Shivaraj V. Patil, J. reminded the High Court of the obligation to intervene under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cases where manifest error has been committed by the Magistrate in issuing process despite the fact that the alleged acts did not at all constitute the offences (in that case under Sections 406 and 420 IPC). It was observed thus :-

......while exercising power under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code the High