Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent no. 2 filed a complaint alleging that the wife left with the ornaments and cash and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 406 IPC because the complainant had entrusted the cash and ornaments to the wife for safe custody. It is further alleged that in the year 1996 there was a compromise in the matter and thereafter the wife came back to stay with the husband but somewhere in November 2000 she again left without returning cash and ornaments. Against the applicant no.2 the simple allegation is that he instigated the applicant no. 1 (wife). 3. After going through the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, I am unable to hold that the court below was justified in issuing summons to the applicant no. 2. Barring one word that he was instigating the wife, there is no other evidence to show that either he abetted the offence or entered into conspiracy with the applicant no. 1. On such a loose allegation a person cannot be presumed as an accused in the matter. The prosecution against the applicant no. 2 deserves to and is accordingly quashed. 4. So far as the applicant no.1 is concerned, it is contended on her behalf that the court below was unjustified in taking cognizance in the matter in the year 2000 while in fact the offence allegedly was committed in the year 1995. 5. In the opinion of this Court, this question will have to be raised by the applicant no.1 before the court below either at the initial stage or during the course of the trial requiring the court to adhere to the facts and form its opinion that the offence was completed in the year 1995 or the original complainant would be entitled to count the limitation from November, 97 the date or the month on which the applicant no. 1 again left the company of the husband. 6. The petition filed by the applicant no. 2 is allowed while the petition of the applicant no. 1 is disposed of with the direction aforesaid.