( 1 ) HEARD Sri Venu Madhav, counsel representing Sri Ban, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sri M. A. Khadeer, the learned Additional Public prosecutor.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows:

( 3 ) THE petitioner/accused in Crime No. 34/2002 of Choppadandi Police Station filed divorce petition OP No. 64/2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at karimnagar against 2nd respondent praying the Court to pass a decree for divorce by dissolving the marriage with the 2nd respondent and the learned Judge passed a decree accordingly on 21-9-2001. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent/ de facto-complainant filed a complaint on 19-2-2002 before the Superintendent of police, Karimnagar against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had married another lady on 15-2-2002 and the said complaint was forwarded to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Choppadandi and after receiving the complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police, choppadandi in Crime No. 34/2002, dated 20-2-2002 had registered the same under section 494 IPC. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent herself in her complaint had admitted that a divorce decree had been granted by the learned Senior Civil judge, Karimnagar and in the said circumstances the present Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to in short as "code" for the purpose of convenience, to quash the proceedings in Crime. No. 34/2002 of P. S. Choppadandi.

( 4 ) SRI Venu Madhav, Counsel representing Sri Bari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that in view of the specific provision of Section 198 of the Code, the police cannot register a crime under Section 494 IPC. The learned counsel further submitted that it is not in dispute that divorce was obtained in a competent Civil Court by the petitioner and in view of the same, the proceedings cannot be sustained and they are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on Krishna Gopal Divedi v. Prabhya Divedi, AIR 2002 SC 389.

( 5 ) SRI M. A. Khaeder, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the contrary had contended that by virtue of the amendment, A. P. Act No,3 of 1992, which came into effect from 15-2-1992, Section 494 ipc also was made cognizable and hence it cannot be said that the police cannot register the crime at all under Section 494 ipc. The learned Additional Public prosecutor also had contended that as can be seen from the decree filed before this court, it is only an ex pane decree and this is a question of fact to be gone into at the appropriate stage and on such a ground, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed.

( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that Section 494 IPC falls under Chapter XX of the Indian penal Code dealing with offences relating to marriage. By virtue of the amendment - A. P. No. 3 of 1992, the said offence was made cognizable and non-bailable. This is the ground on which the learned Additional public Prosecutor with all vehemence had contended that the police have power to investigate into such a cognizable offence and hence the present proceedings need not be quashed at this stage. In K. Vijaya lakshmi v. K. Lakshminarayana, 2000 (2) ald (Crl) 184, the question relating to the specific prohibition for taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, except upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved had been dealt with. Likewise, in Vijaya Lakshmi v. Sanjeev Reddy, 2000 (2) ALD (Crl) 200, the bar imposed by Section 198 of the Code had been dealt with. In view of the specific bar imposed by Section 198 of the Code, it is doubtless that a Magistrate has no power to take cognizance of an offence under section 494 IPC based on a police report - charge sheet. It is also pertinent to note that though the amendment A. P. Act No. 3 of 1992 had brought in an amendment to the first Schedule of the Code making the aforesaid offence cogni