JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.

3. To state in brief, on 16.3.2006 the respondent No.2 lodged a report at police station Sakri on the basis of which Crime No.28 of 2006 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 504, r.w. 34 of I.P.C. against 12 persons, who are present applicants. He had alleged that on 25.1.2004, Bharti, daughter of applicant No.1 Vitthal was engaged to marry respondent No.2. The applicant No.1 hurriedly got the marriage performed on 27.2.2004. On 2.6.2004 at about 11.00 p.m., wife of the respondent No.2 complained of abdominal pain and she was immediately taken to doctor, who after examination, disclosed that she was running 7th month of pregnancy. Thereafter, Sonography was performed, in which it was revealed that on 7.6.2004 she was already pregnant of 27 weeks. It indicated that at the time of marriage with the respondent No.2, she was carrying three months pregnancy. He alleged that the present applicants had misrepresented her character and thus, had cheated him and his family members for entering into this marriage.

4. The applicants by this application seek to quash the registration of F.I.R. and investigation in Crime No.28 of 2006 on the basis of report lodged by the respondent No.2. According to them, no offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. is disclosed by the F.I.R. and it also does not disclose any cognizable offence, on the basis of which the police could take cognizance and investigate the offence.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, it is conceded that the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. is not made out. At the most the report disclosed the offence of cheating punishable under Section 417. The offence under Section 417, I.P.C. is non-cognizable. The offence under Section 504, I.P.C. is also non cognizable. In view of the provisions of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. in non cognizable case, no police officer shall investigate without order of the Magistrate having power to try the said case or to commit the case for trial.

6. The learned counsel for applicants contended that when in non cognizable case the police officer investigates the offence, the entire investigation is liable to be quashed and set aside. He is supported by the authority of this Court in Mukesh Laxman Das Talreja Vs. Inspector of Police, 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1589. In that authority, the provision of Section 155, Cr.P.C. as well as number of authorities from this High Court and the Supreme Court were taken into consideration. The earliest authority in this respect from this Court is Avinash Madhukar Mukhedkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1983 Cri.L.J.1833. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court also in Keshav Lal Thakur Vs. State of Bihar, (1996)11 SCC 557 and State of Punjab Vs. Kasturi Lal and others, (2004)12 SCC 195 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2864 (S.C.)]. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. is very clear on this legal position and police officer cannot investigate the non cognizable case without order of the concerned Magistrate. In view of the above referred authorities the learned Single Judge in Mukesh Talreja, 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1589 (supra) came to conclusion that the entire investigation is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. If the investigation itself is vitiated and is to be set aside, it makes no difference if on the basis of such investigation charge sheet is already filed.

7. In view of the legal position discussed above, it is clear that in the present case, the police investigated the non-cognizable case without any orders from the competent Magistrate and therefore, the registration of offence as well as the investigation into the same are liable to be quashed.

8. For the aforesaid reasons the F.I.R. and the entire investigation made on the basis of the said F.I.R. are hereby quashed and set aside. H

Click Here to Read the rest of this document