Cognizance of offences under Chapter XX of IPC requires a complaint from the aggrieved party, and vague allegations in matrimonial disputes can lead to quashing of proceedings.

ORDER :

(JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 to 9 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.44 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise Court) at Mancherial, arising out of Crime No.92 of 2019 of P.S. Srirampur, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. G.Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of de facto complainant. The petitioners-accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 are the mother, elder sister and younger sister of accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.5 is the husband of petitioner-accused No.4. The petitioners-accused Nos.7 to 9 are the relatives of petitioner-accused No.1.

4. According to the charge sheet, the offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No.1 are under Sections 498-A and 494 of IPC. The petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 9 are being prosecuted for the offence under Section 494 of IPC.

5. The gist of the complaint is that the marriage of petitioner-accused No.1 was performed with the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant on 29.11.2013. At the time of marriage, certain amount of dowry was given. They lived happily for some days and they were blessed with one female child. Thereafter, on the instigation of petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 6, petitioner-accused No.1 harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally demanding additional dowry and necked her out of the matrimonial home in the year 2014. As such, she lodged a complaint against petitioner-accused No.1 and his family members for the offences under Sections 498-A, 290 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Thereafter, she was staying at her parental house. While so, on 25.03.2017, the petitioner-accused No.1 went to her parents house and picked up quarrel with him. With regard to the said incident, the de facto complainant has lodged another complaint. She has also filed M.C.No.16 of 2017 seeking maintenance and the same is pending. The petitioner-accused No.1 frequently used to visit the de facto complainant and threatened her to divorce him. Though the marriage of petitioner-accused No.1 with de facto complainant was subsisting, on 10.11.2019, he married accused No.2 in the presence of his family members i.e., accused Nos.3 to 9.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and petitioner- accused No.1. It is contended that Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of an offence under Chapter XX of IPC, except on a complaint made by the person aggrieved of the offence to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Section 494 of IPC falls under Chapter XX of IPC. As per the charge sheet, the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 9 were present at the time of second marriage of petitioner-accused No.1 with accused No.2. Section 494 of IPC applies to the parties to the alleged second marriage, but not to the persons who have attended the said marriage. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of B.Parvathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, [LAWS (APH)-2020-5-33], wherein, it is held as follows:

“Therefore, as per the definition of complaint under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., any oral or written allegation that some person whether known or unknown has committed an offence made to a Magistrate to take action under the Code is a complaint and police report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is specifically excluded from its purview. Section 2(r) Cr.P.C. defines "police r