Unfortunately, the marital life came to an end within 1 1/2 years after the marriage.
The husband is also living in Fairfax, USA.
Although in the first information report, various other offences viz.
Cognizance was taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Greater Kailash and process for appearance was issued.
A son was born out of the wed lock in April 1996.
467 of 1998 registered by the Greater Kailash Police Station in respect of the offence under Section 406 IPC.
P.C. by the appellants herein for quashing the FIR against them.
Non bailable warrant has also been issued against the first appellant as he failed to appear before the Court on the specified date.
At that stage, petitions were filed under Section 482 Cr.
The other two accused named in the FIR are the husband and mother in law of the companyplainant.
By a brief order dated 7.12.2000 which is assailed in the present appeal, the High Court observed that certain disputed questions regarding return of the articles of the companyplainant have to be examined at the trial and there is numberground to quash the FIR at this stage.
The first respondent lodged a companyplaint with the Police on 15.1.1997.
It appears that a decree of divorce was granted on an application filed by the husband by the Circuit Court at Fairfax on 10.12.1999.
Even before that, it appears the relations between the respondent and the husband his family members became strained.
After investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
By the impugned order, the High Court of Delhi rejected the application of the petitioners appellants for quashing F.I.R. No.
under Sections 498 A, 323 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are mentioned, the FIR was registered for an offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code.
It is the companytention of the appellant that the FIR does number disclose the offence under Section 406 and even going by the allegations, there is absolutely numbermaterial even prima facie to arraign the appellants as accused in the case.
Venkatarama Reddi, J. Leave granted and appeal heard.
As regards the first appellant who is the husbands brother, it is companytended that he came to India to attend the wedding of his brother Accused No.1 and having attended the wedding on 27th January, 1995, he left for USA the same night and he was unnecessarily implicated in the case.
The informant Respondent No.2 is the brothers wife of the first appellant by name Rishi Anand presently living in Fairfax, USA and she is the daughter in law of the second appellant by name Raj Kumar Anand.
