Honble SHARMA, J.–Instant Misc. petition impugns the order dated July 8, 1997 of the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar whereby criminal revision preferred by the non-petitioners No. 2 to 6 (for short the accused) was allowed and cognizance of offences under Secs. 494 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code taken by the Special Judicial Magistrate Alwar against the accused on Feb. 23, 1993 was set aside.

(2). The complainant petitioner (for short the complainant) instituted a complaint against the accused under Sections 494 and 120B of IPC in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate Alwar on November 5, 1992. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Pratapgarh for investigation. A report, after investigation was filed by the police station and the learned Magistrate on Feb. 23, 1993 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 494 and 120B IPC against the accused persons. The said order was called in question by the accused persons by filing revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar.

(3). Learned Sessions Judge, Alwar allowed the revision vide its order dated July 8, 1997. While quashing the order of Magistrate, the learned Judge observed that-

(i) the Magistrate had no jurisdiction as from the facts mentioned in the complaint the alleged second marriage had been taken place outside the jurisdiction of the magistrate, and

(ii) Police had no right to investigate the offences under sections 494 and 120B IPC in view of section 198 Cr.P.C. and no cognizance could have been taken by the Magistrate on the report of the police.

(4). I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully scanned the impugned order and the legal position.

(5). Before adverting to the pivotal question, it will be useful to examine the relevant statutory provisions.

(6). Relevant portion of section 198 which deals with the prosecution for offen- ces against the Marriage recites as under-

``198. Prosecution for offences against Marriage - (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence :

Provided that-

(a).....

(b).....

(c) where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under section 494 or section 493 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 fathers or mothers brother or sister or with the leave of the court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.

7. Section 155 Cr.P.C. is related to the information and investigation of non- cognizable cases and provides thus :-

``155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases - (1) When information is given to an officer incharge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to the entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribed in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.

(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer incharge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.

(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which atleast one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.

(8). Section 182(2) Cr.P.C. provides that-

``Any offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of the Indian

Penal Code may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document