Cognizance of offences under Chapter-XX IPC requires a complaint from an aggrieved person; charge sheets based solely on police reports are invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. The applicants have preferred instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the charge sheet dated 10.04.2024, cognizance order dated 19.07.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 63822 of 2024, [State v. Jitendra and others]arising out of Case Crime No. 402 of 2023, under Section 494 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Jait, District Mathura.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report, [FIR] was lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 30.09.2023 against 10 named persons including the applicants, under Sections 494 and 120-B IPC, alleging therein that marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 on 10.11.2016, according to Hindu rites and rituals. Later, without obtaining divorce from opposite party no. 2, applicant no. 1 has again solemnized his second marriage on 27.12.2022 with one Smt. Anju at District Ballabhgarh, Haryana. The applicant no. 6 was mediator in the aforesaid second marriage as performed by applicant no. 1 with Anju. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted on 10.04.2024 and the court concerned has taken cognizance by order dated 19.07.2024, hence the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Magistrate has overlooked the mandatory provisions of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [Cr.P.C.] which prohibits the court to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter-XX of the Indian Penal Code, [IPC] (Offences relating to marriage), except upon the complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. He further submits that before proceeding with the investigation, no permission under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. was obtained by opposite party no. 2 nor by the Investigating Officer, hence, the entire proceedings are void and illegal. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a judgement of this Court in the case of Suraj Lal Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2006 55 AllCriC 513 : 2006 4 AllLJ 605.

4. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that in case the offence in question is non-cognizable, registration of FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is bar. In context of non-cognizable offence, only NCR under Section 151 Cr.P.C. can be registered at the concerned police station, and permission of competent magistrate is mandatory for carrying out investigation of non-cognizable offences for which NCR is lodged.

5. Relying upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar, 1996 0 Supreme (SC) 1694 : (1996) 11 SCC 557 : 1996 Supp 7 SCR 578 learned counsel for the applicants submits that the police is entitled to investigate into a non-cognizable offence, pursuant to an order of a competent Magistrate under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. In the present case, no such order has been passed, therefore, the cognizance order is bad in the eyes of law.

6. Stressing upon the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the applicants prays that cognizance order and the proceedings of the case instituted against the applicants, may be quashed.

7. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, could not dispute the legal position as argued by learned counsel for the applicants. However, hesubmits that a detailed discussion of legal position has been made by the court concerned in the order dated 19.07.2024, vide which the applicants have been summoned, therefore, the procedure as followed by the court concerned should have been in the manner as to be done in a complaint case.

8. I have heard Sri A.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mayank Awasthi, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.

9. Assailing the cognizance order and the proceedings of the case, under challenge, arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the applicants in two fold: firstly, that charge sheet is not maintainable and cognizance can be taken by the Magistr