BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions are taken up together as they arise out of the same order on charge and charges framed by the learned Metropolitan magistrate on 20. 10. 2006.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners straightaway submitted that he is not pressing these petitions insofar as the charges under 417/406/506/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are concerned. It is, therefore, clear that these petitions are being disposed of merely on the basis of arguments advanced in respect of the offences under sections 493/495/496/498-A/34 IPC.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners divided his arguments into two compartments. First of all, he made submissions with regard to the charges framed under Sections 493/495/496 IPC. Secondly, he made submissions with regard to the offence under Section 498-A. Insofar as the first category of offences are concerned, they fall under Chapter XX of the IPC and, he submitted, section 198 of Cr. P. C. stipulates that cognizance of such offences can only be taken on the basis of a complaint by an aggrieved person. He submitted that in the present case, the Magistrate had proceeded on the basis of a police report and took cognizance of these offences, which the Magistrate was not empowered to do. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, in any event, a complaint has been filed with regard to these offences by the complainant and that is also pending before the same Magistrate.

( 4 ) WITH regard to the offence under Section 498a IPC, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Rajinder Tiwari (one of the petitioners) was not legally married with the complainant inasmuch as the marriage was a nullity on account of the pendency of divorce proceedings in respect of his first marriage. He submits that this is an admitted position as would be apparent from a reading of the order dated 20. 10. 2006 itself wherein it is recorded that the complainant's counsel had vehemently opposed the contention with regard to the charge under Section 498a IPC not being made out on the ground that "even though the marriage is not lawful but the accused cannot escape on this ground alone" and the said counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Reema Aggarwal v Anupam: (2004) 3 scc 199. So, the issue here is whether Rajinder Tiwari, without being a "husband" to the complainant, could be charged of an offence under Section 498a ipc. An identical issue has arisen in the case of Mohit Gupta and Ors v State of Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr : 2006 (3) JCC 1923 wherein the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Reema Aggarwal (surpa) was considered. However, this court held that the Larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court in shivcharan Lal Verma v State of MP : 2002 (2) Crimes 177 (SC) would be applicable and, as per that decision, unless the petitioner fell within the definition of "husband" on the basis of a valid marriage, he could not be prosecuted under Section 498a IPC and the same would be the case for his relatives. Therefore, applying the ratio of Mohit Gupta (supra), which, in turn, applied the binding ratio of Shivcharan Lal Verma (supra), it is abundantly clear that a charge under Section 498a IPC cannot be framed in this case against any of the petitioners.

( 5 ) INSOFAR as the first point taken by the counsel for the petitioners is concerned, I find that the same has merit. It is clear that Section 198 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 imposes a bar on the courts from taking cognizance of offences falling under Chapter XX of the IPC. The bar is that cognizance of such offences can be taken only on the basis of a complaint filed by an aggrieved person. Section 198 of the Code reads as under:-"198. Prosecution for offences against marriage. " (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Pe