1. This application has been filed for quashing an order dated 30-4-1984 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Complaint Case No. 585/83 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under S. 406, Indian Penal Code, (in short the Penal Code).

2. The complainant-opposite party had filed a complaint on 29-12-1983 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad alleging, inter alia, that his sister Ambika Devi alias Rani was married on 30-6-1982 with Ramesh Kumar, petitioner No. 2 son of Bharat Lal, petitioner 1. According to the complainant his sister was living in her Sasural for several months and thereafter the complainant brought her to his house where she was living. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused petitioners along with petitioner 6 came to the complainants house on 25-11-1983 in a private car bearing No. BRW 1782 belonging to petitioner 6 and informed that they were coming from Varanasi and would go to Jharia to see the girl with whom the marriage of petitioner 3, another son of petitioner 1, has been settled. From the complaint, it appears that the petitioners wanted to stay in the house of the complainant in the night and they expressed their desire to proceed for Jharia next morning where upon the complainant hosted all the petitioners and made all possible efforts for their conforts at his place. The further allegation is that petitioner 4, Smt. Damyanti Devi, wife of petitioner 1 asked the complainants sister to give her entire ornaments so that they may be kept in a bank-locker at Varanasi and the complainant and his sister realising the danger of keeping the ornaments in their house, agreed with the proposal of the petitioners and in pursuance thereof, handed over the entire ornaments under good faith to the accused persons.

3. It is further alleged that after a month, the complainant went to Varanasi in connection with his personal work and during that visit, he went to the residence of the petitioners and enquired about the Rukhsalti of his sister whereupon it is said that petitioners 1 to 4, who were present there, misbehaved with the complainant and asked him to go back. It is alleged that they said that neither anybody would go to bring the complainants sister nor her ornaments will be returned as the complainant had not given Television and other costly goods as per his promise and they would realise the price of Television and other goods from the ornaments. It is also said that now no relationship would exist between the petitioners and his sister. The complainant also learnt that the petitioners have settled the marriage of petitioner 2, Ramesh Kumar at some other place. A true copy of the complaint petition is Annexure-1 appended to this application.

4. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on 29-12-1983 and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after examining the complainant, referred the matter to the Principal Probation Officer, Aurangabad for enquiry and report.

5. It transpires that the enquiry officer examined two prosecution witnesses and after examining the aforesaid two witnesses, submitted his report stating therein that a prima facie case has been made out. After perusing the report, cognizance was taken against the petitioners under S. 406, Penal Code, which has been challenged in this application.

6. Mr. J. P. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that no case has been made out against the petitioners under S. 406, Penal Code, as the complaint petition does not disclose any offence under S. 406, Penal Code. It was further contended that the complainants sister whose ornaments are alleged to have been misappropriated by the accused persons, has neither made any complaint nor she was examined before the enquiring officer in support of the complaint case. According to Mr. Shukla, this case has been filed on frivolous ground only as a retaliation to a divorce case bearing Hin