Hon'ble DESAI, J.—Leave granted.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat partly allowing the petition filed by the respondents under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"). The prayer made by respondents 1 to 9 was to quash the complaint filed by the appellant against them under Sections 498A, 494, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The appellant is the original complainant. Respondents 1 to 9 are original accused 1 to 9 respectively. Respondent 2 is the husband of the appellant, respondents 8 is the second wife of respondent 2 and respondents 1, 3 to 7 and 9 are family members of respondent 2 or respondent 8.

4. Gist of the facts stated in the complaint is as under:

The appellant got married to respondent 2 on 7.12.2000. She lived with respondent 2 in the joint family till 18.1.2006. During this period the appellant gave birth to two children. On 30.7.2007 the appellant was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to the cruelty meted out to her in the matrimonial home. During the subsistence of the appellant's marriage with respondent 2 in 2008, respondent 2 got married to respondent 8. Sometime in 2009, when the appellant came to know about the second marriage of respondent 2, she lodged a complaint against respondent 1 to 9 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Nadiad Rural Police Station, District Kheda registered it as CR No. 24 of 2009.

5. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 9 moved an application before the Gujarat High Court under Section 482 of the Code, contending, inter alia, that cognizance of offence under Section 494 of the IPC can be taken only on the complaint made by an aggrieved person and inasmuch as in this case the complaint is not made by the aggrieved person, the police could not have taken cognizance of offence under Section 494 of the IPC.

6. Before the High Court, a statement was made that respondents 1 to 9 were not pressing prayer made in the petition for quashing of offences under Section 498A, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC as against respondents 1 to 5. It was, however, made clear that prayer for quashing of offence under Section 494 of the IPC was being pressed against all the accused i.e. respondents 1 to 9.

7. The High Court accepted the contention raised by respondents 1 to 9 and relying on its earlier judgment in Babubhai Madhavlal Patel and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat (1969 Cri. L. J. 567), the High Court quashed the complaint qua respondents 6 to 9 against whom only allegation of bigamy was made. So far as respondents 1 to 5 are concerned the High Court ordered deletion of offence under section 494 of the IPC from the complaint and directed that the investigation of the other offences should proceed. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal.

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 9. At the outset, we must note that the appellant-wife has lodged the instant complaint inter alia alleging commission of offence under Section 494 of the IPC. The complaint is at investigation stage. The police can, therefore, legally investigate it. However, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Code and IPC because the High Court in our opinion has wrongly relied on its earlier judgment in Babubhai Patel which relates to cognizance of offences falling in Chapter XX of the Code by a Court.

9. We shall now quote the relevant sections of the IPC and the Code. Section 494 of the IPC falls in Chapter XX of the IPC. Chapter XX pertains to offences relating to marriage. So far as it is relevant, Sec. 494 reads as under:

"494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document