The court affirmed that Section 258 Cr.P.C. applies only to summons cases, and once cognizance is taken under Section 494 IPC, it cannot be quashed without merit.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 10.05.2024, passed by the S.D.J.M. Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 1740 of 2006 arising out of Kotwali (S.N.) P.S. Case No. 336 of 2006 whereby and where under, the learned court rejected the petition dated 15.03.2024 wherein the petitioner prayed for dropping the entire criminal proceeding under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code; in view of the bar under Section 198 Cr.P.C.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant lodged the F.I.R. basing upon which Kotwali (SN) P.S. Case No. 336 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1740 of 2006 was registered. Police submitted charge sheet in the said case alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 258 read with Section 198 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to drop the proceeding initiated under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The learned S.D.J.M. considered that in the case, police submitted charge sheet no. 699 of 2007 on 08.06.2007 under Section 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance order was challenged before this court by filing a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. This Court in the said Cr.M.P. No. 1831 of 2007 vide order dated 16.07.2012 quashed cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, but did not interfere with the cognizance in respect of the offence punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. On 18.11.2021, charge was framed against the accused person under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the case is at the stage of argument and at a belated stage, the petition has been filed. The learned S.D.J.M. considered that Section 258 Cr.P.C. vests the court with the power to stop proceedings in summons cases when there exists serious defect in the prosecution case; which goes to the root of the matter rendering further proceeding impossible or futile and since the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for seven years, the same is not a summons case and the same is warrant case, hence the power under Section 258 cannot be exercised in respect of a warrant case like the case involving the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and rejected the application.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi failed to consider the provisions of Section 198 Cr.P.C. and did not consider the judgments pressed by the petitioner. It is then submitted that the learned S.D.J.M. failed to consider the restriction for taking cognizance in respect of the of the offence punishable under section 494 of the IPC, to the effect that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Penal Code, 1860 except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

5. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits, relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2023) SCC Online SC 1399, Para-12 of which reads as under:

“12. In the case on hand, the filing of the charge sheet and the cognizance thereof by the Court concerned were well before the filing of the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein challenge was made only to the sanction order. That being so, the petitioner was not at liberty to again invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the charge sheet and the cognizance or