A. S. NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THE accused persons in ICC No. 26 of 2001 pending in the Court of the S. D. J. M. , Nilgiri have approached this Court invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 inter alia with a prayer to quash the order dated 12-10-2001 of the S. D. J. M. taming congnizance of offences under Sections 498-A/506/ipc and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibitory Act alleged against them. The order is challenged on two grounds. First, due to non filing of any FIR with police as admitted by the complaint opposite party, the S. D. J. M. ought to have rejected the compalint petition in limine; and secondly, as the facts stated in the complaint petition were vexatiousand did not prima facie constitute any offence, the order taking cognizance is liable to be quashed.

( 2 ) THE admitted case of both sides is that petitioner No. 1 married the sole opposite party according to Hindu rituals on 11th of March, 2000. According to the complainant-opposite party due to fairlure in giving the promised dowry by her father, she was subjectd to unsurmountable harship, torture and even physical assault. Her in-laws with common intention snatched away all her ornaments and drove her out of her matrimonial home on 25-7-2000. Thereafter though her father approached petitioenr No. 1 and others several times, they declined to take the complainant-opposite party bock to their house and having no other way out, the complainant-opposite party was constrained to file the complainant petition on 26-3-2001. It is pertinent to mention here that in the complaint petition against column-6 the complainant-opposite party has stated that she had not filed any FIR before police.

( 3 ) AT the other hand, according to the accused-petitioners, soon after the marriage of petitioner No. 1 with the complainant-opposite party, the husband petitioner No. 1 found that the opopsite party had conceived since 17-1-2000. Thereafter dissensions cropped up about the said fact and ultimately the father of the opposite party took away her to his house. it is further alleged that on 13-5-2000 petitioner No. 1 went to teh house of hte father of the opposite party and requested him to allow him (petitioner No. 1) to bring back his wife (opposite party) but he was not allowed to do so. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter filed a petition before the Kanas Grama Panchayat on 30-5-2000 and a notice was issued to the opposite party. As a counter-blast the opposite party in order to harass petitioner No. 1 and his family members has concocted to file the aforesaid complaint case.

( 4 ) IN course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the stand of the petitioners and submitted that as according to the opposite party no information has been lodged with poilce even though the petitioners were alleged to have committed cognizable offences, the S. D. J. M. acted illegaly in accepting the complaint petition. It is also forcefully submited that column-6 of the complaint petition requiring the complainant to furnish a statement as to whether any complaint had been filed with police or not is not an empty formality.

( 5 ) THE first point which needs determination is whether filign of an FIR with police is a sine qua non for accepting a complaint petition. Section 190, Cr. P. C. lays down the conditions requisite for initiation of a proceeding. It empowers a Magistrate to take congizance of an offence under three eventualities - (a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) Upon police report of such facts; and (c) Upon information received from any person other than police officer or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed.

( 6 ) READING the Section itself reveals that the Magistrate himself has power to entertain a complaint petition if the same is presented before him irrespective of the fact as to whether the matter has been reported to police or not. The different clauses of the Section