( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India has arisen in following circumstances :

( 2 ) A complaint stands filed by one R. K. Roye, Income-tax officer District X (3), Delhi against M/s. Shanti Vijay and Co. and 17 othets, with allegations that they have committed offences under Section 277/278 of the Inoome-tax Act, 1961 arid Section 1931 196 Indian Penal Code. It is pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. On its basis summons were issued to all the respondents for appearance and facing trial. M/s. Lalji and Co. and its three partners who are impleaded as respondents No. 6 to 8 in that complaint, feeling aggrieved against the service of those summons on them have now moved this petition for setting aside and/or quashing the issue of process to them by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

( 3 ) NOTICE to show cause why this petition be not adnutted, was issued to the respondents including the complainant Income- tax Officer. Some of them have been served. The petition is contested and opposed by the complainant Income-tax Officer.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the present petitioners and the said complaint, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for admission. The petition is accordingly admitted.

( 5 ) SINCE arguments have been heard on the merits of this petition. I proceed to dispose of the same as I find that in terms of the averments made in the complaint, no case was made out against the present petitioners which could have justified the issue of process against them. Here it may be mentioned that the petitioner firm is situate at Bombay, and so are all its partners. The complaint as it is, is likely to takce considerable time and hearings before it finally gets decided, and I do not see any point in requiring the petitioners to continue making appearance in the Delhi Court in that protracted trial, when no case whatsoever has been made out against them in the complaint itself.

( 6 ) I am conscious in this regard that inherent powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. are not to be too readily exercised when the complainant has had no opportunity to substantiate the allegations made against the accused persons, much less that any evidence was tendered by him. This court has also not to scam minutely the merits of the allegations made and embark upon assessing the possibilities which may ultimately result in bringing home to the accused the offence alleged against him. In case a prima facie case existed with the trial court justifying the issue of process the High Court would keep its hands off and decline to interfere. However, at the same time where the averments made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirity, do not bring out the commission of the offence alleged, there would be no question of appreciation of the evidence or possibilities. It would be merely looking at the complaint to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not and if it is patent that none such is disclosed, it would be manifestly unjust and an abuse of the process of the court to allow the issue of process to subsist and the trial to proceed. I am of the considered opinion that the present case falls in this later category.

( 7 ) BRIEFLY stated the averments made in the complaint are that the Maharaja of Gwalior wanted to dispose of his jewellery worth about Rs. 40 lakhs. M/s. Shanti Vijay and Co. (hereinafter mentioned as accused No. 1) entered into negotiations with the Maharaja and struck a deal. In this process, this accused associated M/s. Lalji and Co. as well (hereinafter mentioned as accused No. 6) and what they mutually agreed was that the purchase of jewellery to the extent of Rs. 13,25,000. 00 would be financed by this accused No. 6 with corresponding sharing of the jewellery so purchased. Thus each of these accused No. 1 and 6 had to arrange substantial cash for the p