Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.

1. Heard respective Counsel. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner herein happens to be original informant in Crime No. 196 of 2007 registered at Shahada Police Station. The complainant had approached Shahada Police Station on 22.12.2007 and lodged a report at the police station that she has married to the present respondent No. 2 in the year 1983. The couple is blessed with two daughters and a son. She was residing with her husband in the matrimonial home. She was being harassed and ill-treated by the members of her matrimonial family on account of not being honoured properly at the time of marriage. According to her, her husband developed intimacy with her maternal cousin. They intended to get married. They were coercing her to give divorce in order to facilitate the second marriage of her husband with Anita, who happens to be her maternal cousin. She had denied to give consent. According to her the parents of Anita as well as Anita herself were coercing her to give consent for second marriage and on that count she was being mentally harassed and physically abused by Anita and her parents. It is alleged in the First Information Report that on 25.11.2007 her husband got married to Anita in Ganpati Mandir at Shahada. She has alleged that relatives of her husband were present at the time of marriage. She was driven out of her matrimonial house.

3. On the basis of her report filed under section 154 of Cr.P.C., Crime No. 196 of 2007 was registered against the accused. The investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed on 08.02.2008. The accused were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The case was registered as R.C.C. No. 18 of 2008. The learned 2nd J.M.F.C., Shahada framed charge against the accused for offences with which they were charge-sheeted. The charge was framed on 05.08.2013. The Assistant Public Prosecutor conducting the trial in R.C.C. No. 18 of 2008 filed an application before the learned J.M.F.C., Shahada on 14.03.2014, thereby praying therein that charge to be amended in accordance with law. In the said application, the learned APP had submitted as follows:-

"At the outset the contents of paragraph No. 4 of the complaint encapsulates all the basic ingredients of the offence punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore same deserves cognizance and inclusion in the said charge at Exh. 47 in the interest of justice."

5. In the prayer clause, there was no specific prayer for addition of section 494 of Indian Penal Code. Neither there was prayer that the charge be added. The learned J.M.F.C. by order dated 19.03.2014 after assigning sufficient reasons has rejected the said application filed by the State. Hence, this writ petition.

6. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the rejection of the said application has not been challenged by the State, but is being impugned by the original complainant. At this stage, there is nothing on record to indicate that the complainant was prosecuting the Trial under section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, clear that present petitioner is only witness in the said case and would be examined as a witness to substantiate the allegations made under section 154 of Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ushaben Vs. Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada & Ors., 2012 AIR SCW 2398 (1) : [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2088 (S.C.)]. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:-

"Section 190(1) empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence, upon receiving complaint of facts which constitute such offence; upon police report of such facts; upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his knowledge that such offence has been committed. Section 198 which relates to prosecution for offences against marriage brings