Honble Goyal, J.–This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by the accused petitioners is directed against the order dated 11.5.02, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, forwarded the complaint of complainant respondent No.2 under Sections 494, 406, 120B IPC, for investigation as provided under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. with a further prayer to quash the F.I.R. No. 132/02 and the investigation done so far.

(2). The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant Raj Kumar filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, on 8.5.2002 against Smt. Anjali alias Devi, her brother Bhagwan Ramani and Smt. Kamla with the everments that having come to know from Kamla about the present petitioner Smt. Anjali @ Devi that she is a widower, he got married with her in March 1998, in Sindhi Gurudwara according to Sindhi rites and rituals but now he has come to know that Smt. Anjali was previously married to Kishore resident of Bhopal, Indra Kumar resident of Jaipur and Mohan Ahuja, resident of Pune and all previous husbands are alive. It was further averred in the complaint that Ms Anjali, in collusion with her brother Bhagwan Ramani, married time to time with an intention to cheat by taking away money clothes, ornaments etc. When the complainant enquired about this fact from Anjali, she alongwith her brother took away cash amount, golden ornaments and clothes belonging to the complainant and ran away. Thereafter both of them started threatening him and raised further demand of Rs. 3 lacs.

(3). This complaint was sent for investigation to Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur, as provided under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Police registered F.I.R. No. 132/2002, for the offences under Sections 494, 406, 120B IPC and started investigation. A perusal of the case diary goes to show that investigation officer after completion of the investigation prepared charge sheet against both the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 494, 406 read with Section 120B IPC. No case was found against Smt. Kamla.

(4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned P.P. Counsel for the accused petitioners referred the Provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 198 Cr. P.C. and contended that the learned Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance of an offence pubishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The offence under Section 494 I.P.C. comes within the purview of Chapter XX of I.P.C. The first argument raised by counsel for the accused persons is that the present complainant Raj Kumar is not the person aggrieved and only previous husbands may be aggrieved persons. This argument has got no force as the complainant Raj Kumar, according to him being 4th husband is certainly a person aggrieved as provided by Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. The second argument raised by learned counsel is that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to forward this complaint under Section 156 Cr.P.C. for investigation and cognizance on the basis of the charge sheet to be submitted by the I.O. is barred under Section 198(1), hence the order dated 11.5.02 and subsequent investigation in compliance of that order are liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed upon Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of U.P. and another (1), Allahabad and Asu Lal vs. The State of Raj. (2).Both the judgments were delivered on the basis of the Provisions of Section 199 Cr.P.C. dealing with the offences under Chapter XXI of IPC. The Provisions of Section 198 and 199 Cr.P.C. are similar. In both the rulings, it was held that no Court is competent to take recourse to the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for any offence falling under Chapter XXI.

(5). Learned P.P. and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the impugned order dated. 11.5.02. I have considered the above submissions but unable to agree as facts of this case disclose both cognizable and non-cognizable offences and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document