Cognizance of offences under specific sections of IPC must adhere to procedural requirements outlined in CrPC; failure to follow these renders such actions invalid.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 340, 195, and 193/199/209 of IPC - Cognizance for alleged false statements - The Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by taking cognizance without a proper complaint as required under Section 195 - The correct procedure must be followed to ensure judicial integrity. (Paras 3, 4, 23, 24)

(B) Jurisdiction - The jurisdiction must be maintained in accordance with procedural laws - Cognizance is barred unless a complaint from the relevant court is made, ensuring that every party is protected under law. (Paras 24, 25)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order where cognizance was taken against her under IPC sections for alleged false statements. She is a wife seeking relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act following the dismissal of her prior case and subsequently filing for maintenance. After interim maintenance was awarded, her husband filed a complaint alleging falsehoods in her affidavit submitted for maintenance applications. (Paras 1, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 5)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the magistrate's taking cognizance was not in adherence to the statutory requirements, rendering the action bad in law. Cognizance cannot be taken without a prior written complaint from the relevant court where the original case is pending. (Paras 23, 27)

Issues: Whether the cognizance taken was proper given the procedural requirements under Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC and if the complaint was validly made. (Paras 9, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that cognizance for offences under certain sections of the IPC can only be taken with a written complaint from the concerned court, underscoring the necessity of following proper legal procedures to maintain the rule of law and judicial processes. (Paras 24, 23)

Result: Petition allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

Table of Content
1. details of the revision application (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on jurisdiction of the magistrate (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. opposing party's legal contentions (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court observations on the implications of s.340 (Para 10 , 15 , 17)
5. nature of maintenance proceedings (Para 11)
6. legal precedent and implications of s.340 (Para 14 , 20 , 21)
7. final ruling and order (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

1. By filing this Criminal Revisional application under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the Petitioner has challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of an Order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - II, Calcutta in the Complaint Case No. CNS No. 1058 of 2021.

2. By the said impugned order dated 03.11.2021, the Learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner under S.193/199/209 of the IPC in a proceeding filed under S.340 read with S.195 of the CrPC.

3. The brief facts, leading to filing of this Criminal Revisional application, are as under: -

3a. The petitioner is a legally married wife of the opposite party No. 1. She had filed an application under S.12 read with S.23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 being Misc. Case No. 17/2017. The said proceeding was dismissed for default by the Learned 18 Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner / wife had been residing in joint mess. After dismissal of the said case, the petitioner was ousted from her matrimonial house.

3b. Due to change in the circumstances, the petitioner / wife has filed a fresh application under S.12 read with S.23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 praying reliefs as prayed for. The proceeding is pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6 Court at Calcutta.

3c. In the said proceeding, the husband has filed an objection raising point of maintainability, which has been decided by the Learned Magistrate vide Order dated 23.02.2021. The Learned Magistrate holds the proceeding is maintainable and further allowed interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.39,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the petitioner awaiting the disposal of the case by the Learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.03.2021.
3d. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned order dated 23.03.2021, the opposite party No. 1 had filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 100 of 2021 before the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at Calcutta, which was, however, allowed on 07.12.2021 whereby setting aside the impugned Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the Learned Magistrate.

3e. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order dated 07.12.2021 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 100 of 2021, the petitioner has moved a Revisional application being CRR No. 314 of 2022. After hearing, the then Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court has been pleased to stay the impugned Order dated 23.03.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2021 on 02.02.2022.

3f. During pendency of the Revisional application, the opposite party No. 1 / husband filed an application under S.340 of the CrPC alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner / wife had made false statements in the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed before the Learned 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in connection with the Misc. Case No. 9 of 2019. The said application had been filed before the Learned 6th Metropolitan Magistrate. However, it was appeared and moved the same as complaint case before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - II, Calcutta on 03.11.2021.

3g. The Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - II, Calcutta took cognizance on the said complaint vide order dated 03.11.2021 and the case was further transferred to the file of the Learned 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. Though, the application was originally filed before the Learned 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta since the original Misc. Case No. 9 of 2019 was pending befo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 4766

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, JGarima Shaw Alias Guddi Shaw v. Umesh Kumar ShawCriminal Revisional Application No. 664 of 2022 | Complaint Case No. CNS No. 1058 of 2021 | Misc. Case No. 17/2017 | Misc. Appeal No. 100 of 2021 | CRR No. 314 of 2022

Cognizance of offences under specific sections of IPC must adhere to procedural requirements outlined in CrPC; failure to follow these renders such actions invalid.

Cases Referred (5)

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
, J
Garima Shaw Alias Guddi Shaw v. Umesh Kumar Shaw
Criminal Revisional Application No. 664 of 2022 | Complaint Case No. CNS No. 1058 of 2021 | Misc. Case No. 17/2017 | Misc. Appeal No. 100 of 2021 | CRR No. 314 of 2022