This M.C. is filed by the 1st accused in Crime No. 202/99 registered by the Palode Police alleging offence punishable under Section 494 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings initiated against him.

2. The 1st respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, I, Nedumangad alleging offence punishable under Section 494 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. against the accused. The learned Magistrate took the complaint to file as C.M.P. No. 6282/99 and forward the same to the S.I. of Police, Palode for investigation and report under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Palode Police registered the above crime alleging offence punishable under section 494 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and commenced investigation,

3. The petitioner has contended that the course adopted by the learned Magistrate in this case Is illegal and violating the provisions of Section 198(1) of the Cr.P.C. According to him, the learned Magistrate has no authority to forward the complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the police has no power to registrar the case against the petitioner and investigate the same. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the entire proceedings initiated against him should be quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

4. Section 198(1) of the Cr.P.C. deals with prosecution for offences against marriage which reads as follows :

"198. Prosecution for offences against marriage -

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of Indian Penal Code 1860 (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence."

5. In this case there is no dispute that the complaint is filed by the 1st respondent claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the 1st accused, petitioner herein. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the offence punishable under section 494 is non cognizable and cognizance can be taken by the Court only on the completaint filed by some person aggrieved by the offence under section 198 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has to resort to the procedure provided under Chapter XV of the Code in order to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, the learned Magistrate ought to have proceeded with the complainant filed by the 1st respondent under section 200 or Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. as the case may be before taking cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has also contended that with regard to the complaint cases to be dealt with by the Magistrate under Chapter XV of the Code, he has no jurisdiction to forward the complaint to the police for investigation and report. Therefore, according to him, the action taken by the Magistrate without resorting to the procedure provided under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. and forwarding the same to the police for investigation and report under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is illegal and therefore the consequent registration of the F.I.R. by the police against him is also illegal.

6. The contention of the petitioner that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to forward the complaint filed under section 198 of the Cr.P.C. to the police for investigation and report under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is not sustainable. Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. provides that any Magistrate empowered under section 190 of the Cr.P.C. may order an investigation by the police. Under Section 202 (1) of the Cr.P.C. also the Magistrate has got jurisdiction either to enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in the matter.

7. In the decision in Ajithakumari v. State of Kerala, 1986 Ker LT 7 a single Judg