MEHAR DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) OM Prakash Sharma, petitioner No. 2, was working as a Lecturer in Meyo College, Ajmer. He had been married to Smt. Reetu Sharma in the year 1979. It appears that in the year 1987 he got an advertisement published in the matrimonial column of News -paper representing himself to be an un -married fellow and willing to many a lady, Smt. Karuna Sharma, resident of Jalandhar, appears to have responded to the advertisement and after exchange of some letters she was married to Om Prakash Sharma, petitioner No. 2, on 15.12.1987. On coming to the house of her husband Om Prakash Sharma, petitioner, she came to know that he was already having a wife living with him. She further came to hold the opinion that Om Prakash Sharma had entered into a criminal conspiracy with his wife Smt. Reetu Sharma and his mother Smt. Mehar Devi, petitioner No. 1, to contract a second marriage during the life time of his wife Smt. Reetu Sharma in order to get dowry. On coming to know of such facts, Smt. Karuna Sharma appears to have sent some letters, telegrams, etc, to the concerned police officers. Such letter appears to have been sent by her on 26.2.1989 to the S.P. Ajmer, who vide his order dated 27.2.1989 directed the recording of the statements of the parties concerned, Smt. Karuna Sharma could not be examined and when a registered letter was sent to her at her Jalandhar address, she sent a number of photostat copies of several letters as also some photographs and a certificate of the marriage of Om Prakash Sharma with her. On the basis of the material so collected the A.S.I., P/s. Alwar Gate, Ajmer, registered crime No. 64/89 for offences Under Sections 494 and 420 IPC against the present petitioners and reportedly also against Smt. Reetu Sharma, who has since died. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a police report in the court of the concerned Magistrate and on the basis of such police report the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences Under Sections 120B, 494, 498A, 420 IPC, Smt. Mehar Devi, petitioner No. 1, has since been charged with the offence Under Section 498A and Om Prakash Sharma, petitioner No. 2; with offences Under Sections 420, 498A, 120B and 494 IPC. They are reportedly being tried for those offences.

(3.) THERE can hardly be any doubt that the provisions, contained in Section 198 Cr. P.C, are mandatory in character and create a bar to the taking of cognizance of an offence, punishable under Chapter XX of the IPC, by a court except upon a complaint made by some persons, aggrieved by the offence. It is also an obvious fact that the offences, punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code are offences relating to marriage and, therefore, a complaint by the aggrieved person is necessary for taking cognizance of such offences by a court. In this behalf the proposition laid down in the cases, cited at bar, is beyond any dispute and I respectfully subscribed to the view, expressed therein, However, the facts in the present case are quite distinguishable. Herein on the basis of the complaints sent by Smt. Karuna Sharma to the police officers at Ajmer and other places, a case for offences Under Section 420 and 494 IPC was registered. It may be appreciated that as per Scheduled II, the offence Under Section 494 IPC is a non -cognizable offence but the offence Under Section 420 IPC is a cognizable one. Where a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable as well as a non -cognizable offence the police may enter into investigation of the cognizable offence and since a non -cognizable offence is also reported to have been committed in the case, the police is competent to investigate such non -cognizable offence even in the absence of an order from the Magistrate, which is otherwise required Under Section 155 Cr. P.C. Sub -section (4) of Section 155 Cr. P.C. clearly says that the police may investigate a non -cognizable offence without the orders of the Magistrate where such offence is committed alongwith a cognizable offence. In that view of the matter since the offence Under Section 420 I PC was cognizable offence, the offence Under Section 494 1PC, which is a non -cognizable offence, could have also been investigated by the police. Apart from the above, after investigation the police had submitted their report for offences Under Sections 120B, 420, 494, 498A IPC. Out of these, offences, the offences Under Section 120B, 420 and 498A IPC are cognizable offences and, therefore, the Magistrate was competent to have taken cognizance on the basis of such report for cognizable as well as non -cognizable offences.