Honble SINGH, J. – Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2.

(2). The facts of the case may be briefly stated as below:

Smt. Ganga Devi @ Guddi is legally married wife of Suresh Kumar petitioner no. 1. The marriage of Smt. Ganga Devi was solemnised on 10th February, 1989. Smt. Ganga Devi filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 109, 494 and 120-B of the Indian PenalCode. The complaint was sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate to the Police under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation. In compliance with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate the Police investigated the case and after completion of the investigation submitted a report under Section 173 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging therein that offences under Sections498-A, 494, 109 and 120-B were prima facie made out. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana took cognizance of the offences disclosed by the police report and registered the case at No. 267/94 cognizance of the offence was taken on 15th October, 1994.

(3). Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15th October, 1994 by which cogni-zance had been taken of the above mentioned offences, the accused persons (petitioners) filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Merta. The revision petition was transferred to the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases (Prevention of Attrocities Act), Merta where it was registered at No. 39/96. The learned Special Judge vide order dated 23rd November, 1996 dismissed the revisionpetition filed by the petitioners.

(4). It was urged before the learned Sessions Judge that in view of sub-section (1) of Section 198 (1973) of the Criminal Procedure Code the cognizance of the offences under Section 494 I.P.C. could not have been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate without a complaint required by Section 198 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code. It was also urged before the learned Sessions Judge that the investigation by the Police in the matter of allegation of bigamy was not authorised and that the cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana was barred by limitation.

(5). All the three submissions made by the learned Special Judge were foundto be untenable and the revision was dismissed. Feeling agggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(6). The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Codeby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana without a complaint as required by Section 198 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code was without jurisdiction. In State of Orissa vs. Sharat Chandra Sahu & Anr. (1), a similar question arose before the Honble Supreme Court.

(7). Womens Commission had sent complaint to the Police alleging the commi-ssion of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police registered the case at No. 418/93 against the respondent No.1 and investigated the case. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anandpur who perused the charge-sheet and framed charges against respondent No. 1 under Sections 498-A and 494of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the framing of the charge by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anandpur, the respondent No. 1 filed a petition before the Orissa High Court for quashing the proceedings and the charges framed against him. The High Court partly allowed the petition with the findings that since respondent No. 2 had not herself personally filed the complaint under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code the cognizance of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document