JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 1973, is directed against the order of the learned Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 3rd April, 1978, whereby the accused petitioners have been summoned for an offence under Section 406 and 500 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Mst. Anisa Begam was married to Hasan Daraz on 17-4-1966. Umar Daraz and Gulsan are the parents of Hasan Daraz. The complainants case is that from the very beginning Hasan Daraz wanted to get rid of the complainant and also wanted to devour her entire ornaments and goods received by her by way of dowry. It was further contended that day prior to Bakar Id in 1977, she was beaten and thrown out of the house. It was also contended by her that Hasan Daraz is intending to have a second marriage. It is further contended that on 13-1-1978, Hasan Daraz served a notice on Mst. Anisa Begam through his counsel stating that he unequivocally divorced her because she has been seen loitering with strangers and that her character is not beyond reproach. The contention of Mst. Anisa Begam is that all this has been done by Hasan Daraz under the instructions and in connivance of his father and mother Umar Daraz and Gulson. 3. A complaint under Sections 406 and 500, IPC was filed against the accused persons. The statement of Mst. Anisa Begam was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 6-3-1978. The statements of Safi Mohd. and Nilam Mystery were recorded on 9-3-1978. The learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 406/500, IPC by registering a case against the accused-petitioners on 3-4-1978. 4. The contention of the present accused persons is that there is absolutely no evidence against them, and that they have been dragged in a court of law for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It has been contended that looking to the allegations made in the complaint and the statements recorded on behalf of the prosecution, no prima facie case is made out against the present accused persons. It has been contended that with a view to avoid abuse of the process of the Court, it is a fit case in which the power under Section 482, Cr. It has been contended that with a view to avoid abuse of the process of the Court, it is a fit case in which the power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. may be invoked and the proceedings against the present accused persons be quashed. 5. Reliance has been placed on R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 , Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, CAR (SC) 43 and Nagawa v. Veeranna. 6. On behalf of Mst. Anisa Begam, it has been contended that there is absolutely no justification for invoking the extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. in the present case. It has been contended by the learned counsel for Mst. Anisa Begam that there is evidence on record which justifies the registration of a case under Sections 406/500, IPC against the accused-petitioners and which also justifies issuance of a process against them. It was also contended that the Supreme Court and the High Court should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. When learned Magistrate after having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case exercised his direction in registering the case and issuing process. It has also been contended that the accused-petitioners have, at this stage, no locus standi to challenge the proceedings, resulting in the issuance of a process against them. 7. Respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. 8. In R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (supra), it has been held that where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. 9. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra , it has been held that the High Court must exercise the inherent powers very sparingly. One such case would be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. 10. 9. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra , it has been held that the High Court must exercise the inherent powers very sparingly. One such case would be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. 10. In Nagawwa v. Veeranna , it has been held as under:- "At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of case nor can the High Court go into this matter in its revisional jurisdiction which is a very limited one". 11. In Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar (supra), it has been observed that." "It is now settled law that where the allegations met out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is competent to the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking soginzance of the offence. 12. The contents of the complaint and the evidence recorded on behalf of the prosecution have been carefully perused. In para 7 of the complaint, it has been stated that the accused No. 1 Hasan Daraz has kept all the goods given in dowry, Ornaments etc. have been kept by Hasan Daraz, and that he is damaging those articles. These is no evidence on record incriminating the present accused person Umar Daraz and Mst. Gulson in any of the offence under Section 406/500, I. P. C. As the learned Magistrate has rejected the case against the present accused petitioners without any legal evidence, he has acted without jurisdiction and the process of the court. 13. For the reasons stated above, the petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is allowed. The proceedings under Sections 406/500, I. P. C. under the present accused petitioners Umar Daraz and Mst. Gulson are hereby quashed. Proceedings against Hasan Daraz under Section 406/500, I. P. C. shall be heard and decided by the learned Magistrate on merits according to law.Petition allowed. *******