- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) The High court has quashed the complaint made by the wife under Section 406 against the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and in-laws, on the ground that the entrustment of ornaments, clothes and cash was not specifically mentioned in the complaint. We have perused the complaint and also the statement of the complainant recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. We find that the conclusion reached by the High court appears to be not correct. There are allegations to the effect of entrustment, the correctness of which, of course, will have to be gone into in the trial of the case. It cannot, however, be stated that there was no entrustment of articles and cash pleaded in the complaint. For taking cognizance of the case, the allegations in the complaint, in our opinion, are sufficient. The High court, therefore, was in error in quashing the complaint under Section 406 and the proceedings connected therewith taken by the Magistrate.
(3.) It is, however, to be stated that the complaint has been filed against the entire family members which on the very face of it appears to be oppressive. We do not find any justification for arraying the in-laws as Accused 4 to 6. Ordinarily they do not come into the picture on receiving any gifts of articles at the time of ring ceremony with which the complaint is concerned. We, therefore, reverse the order of the High court so far as it relates to Accused 1 to 3 (the husband, the father-in-law and the mother-in-law) and keep the order of the High court undisturbed as against Accused 4 to 6.;