Back
2010(3) Crimes 497 (A.P.)
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.
A. Subash Babu —Appellant
versus
State of A.P. and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 2426 of 2005
Decided on 26.2.2010
Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1: Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. K. Surender, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) If a complaint for the offence under Section 494 of IPC is lodged along with other cognizable offences before the police and if the police files a charge-sheet, the Court can take cognizance of the offence under Section 494 of IPC also along with other cognizable offences by virtue of Section 155(4) of Cr.P.C.
(2) Valid marriage is the sine qua non for applying penal provision under Section 498A IPC.
Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 198(1) proviso and Bar in taking cognizance of offences under Sections 494 and 495 on police report—Court could take cognizance of offence under Section 494 IPC also along with other cognizable offences by virtue of Section 155(4) CrPC. (Para 5 to 7)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 494 and 495—Petitioner accused got married to complainant on a false and fraudulent representation that his first wife had died—Petition to quash charge-sheet and proceedings on ground that for offence of bigamy aggrieved person was the first wife and not the second wife defecto complainant —Since offence under section 495 IPC had also been involved where offence of bigamy was committed with concealment, 2nd wife alone was the aggrieved person for purposes of Section 198 (1) CrPC and she was competent to maintain complaint for offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC. (Para 11).
(iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 498A—Existence of valid marriage would be sine qua non for applying penal provision. (Paras 12 to 14)
ORDER
Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.— This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 482 CrPC, for quashing proceedings in CC No. 820 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, (West and South), Ranga Reddy District relating to offences punishable under Sections 494, 495, 420, 417, 498A IPC.
2. Previously, the petitioner filed criminal petition No.812 of 2001 in this Court for the self same relief and it was withdrawn by the petitioner and the petition was accordingly dismissed by order dated 9.4.2005 by which the petitioner was given liberty to file afresh petition if he is so advised. After few days thereof, the petitioner came up with the present petition on 9.5.2005 for quashing proceedings in the criminal case. It is not known for what purpose it was previously withdrawn and on what new grounds the present petition is filed.
3. It is alleged that the accused cheated the victim woman and her parents by stating that his first wife died after delivering two of his children who are studying by staying in a hostel, even though his first wife by name Sarda is very much alive and living with him at Avanthinagar near Erragadda, and that by making the said false and fraudulent representation, the accused married the victim woman at Yadagirigutta on 9.10.1994, and that the accused collected total amount of Rs.28,000 from father of the victim woman towards hand loan on the false plea that he was constructing his own house at Borabanda; and that the accused further demanded Rs.20,000 from him and threatened the victim and her father with dire consequences by showing his licensed revolver and that several times the accused tried to snatch away gold ornaments from the victim’s person by threatening her with dire consequences and that the accused demanded to part with her gold ornaments together with cash of Rs.15,000 from her parents and that when his additional demand was not fulfilled, the accused threatened the victim and her father by saying that he would wipe out evidence of his marriage with the victim at Yadagirigutta in a Choultry by destroying all photographs and negatives and would walk out of their house. The petitioner/accused was then working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Intelligence Wing of the Police Department at Hyderabad. Truth or otherwise of all allegations in the charge -sheet as well as in First Information Report have to be adjudged by the trial Court after both the parties leading their oral and documentary evidence during trial before the lower court.
4. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that Section 198(1) proviso (c) of CrPC bars taking cognizance of the case relating to offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 IPC Proviso (c) to Section 198(1) of CrPC as it is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as follows:
“Provided that……. (c) where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under (Section 494 or Section 495) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her father’s or mother’s brother or sister (or with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption).”
5. But, Division Bench oft his Court in Mayuri Rani Veerabhadramma v. State of A.P.1 took note of the fact that though offence punishable under Section 494 IPC as amended in the State of Andhra Pradesh is made cognizable, there is no corresponding amendment to Section 198 CrPC, and that though investigating agency is entitled to investigate, the Magistrate is precluded from taking cognizance of the said offence on report filed by the police. The Division Bench answered the reference with the following conclusions:
1. If complaint is filed under Section 200 of CrPC, for the offence under Section 494 of IPC before a Magistrate, he may take cognizance of the offence or postpone the issue of process either by making enquiry into the case by himself or direct an
