ORDER:-

This criminal petition is filed u/Sec.482 of Cr.P.C seeking to call for the records in and relating to the order dated 03.6.2021 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa in Crl.M.P.No.1046/2015 in C.C.No.585/2015 of the Court of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa and quash the same.

2. This criminal petition is filed aggrieved by the orders of Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa in Crl.R.P.No.17/2020 dated 03.6.2021. Basing on the complaint dated 06.01.2012, by the 1st respondent, the Kadapa I Town police registered a case in Crime No.06/2012 under sections 419, 420, 197, 494 IPC. After investigation, they have filed charge sheet on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa under sections 419, 420, 198, 494, 498-A IPC. Subsequent to filing of charge sheet, the petitioner filed a petition under section 239 Cr.P.C seeking to discharge her from the case without framing the charges. Considering the facts and on perusal of the records, the trial Court has asserted that the offences under sections 494, 498-A IPC might not be attracted to the case facts, however the offences under sections 198, 419 and 420 of IPC are certainly attracted to the alleged case facts. Hence the Court below has declined to allow the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a revision before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa and the revisional Court has also taken the same view in the following paragraphs.

…Learned Judge in the impugned order also made an observation that Sec.494, 498-A IPC may not be attracted, but other offences attract. Accused No.1 sought for discharge from all offences. However, as per the record, the accusations are specific, that Accused No.1 being a government employee working in police department had allegedly done representations and try to get benefit though she is not entitled for. Accused NO.1 did not specific denied these allegations, but taking shelter the investigation against Accused no.2, that cannot be a ground in my view to consider the relief under section 239 Cr.P.C.”

and ultimately dismissed the revision.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a contention that section 494 and 498-A IPC would not attract the ingredients. Because as per section 198 of Cr.P.C, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by same person aggrieved by the offence. Chapter XX deals with matrimonial cases and in the said cases according to section 498 an exception has been culled out that only aggrieved person alone is entitled to make a complaint then only the Court should take cognizance.

4. In the instant case, the complaint is by a police constable who has nothing to do with the matrimonial issues with regard to the petitioner. While investigating the crime no.138/2011, he found the facts and basing on that the present complaint is filed.

5. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the record and also the observations made by the trial court as well as the revisional court i.e. Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa, taking cognizance under sections 494, 498-A IPC against the petitioner herein by the Court below, is hereby quashed. But it is made clear that investigation may go on against the petitioner for the remaining offences.

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed in part.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH