- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smt. Mehar Devi & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan
Factual and Procedural Background
Om Prakash Sharma, petitioner No. 2, was employed as a Lecturer at Meyo College, Ajmer, and was married to Smt. Reetu Sharma in 1979. In 1987, he published a matrimonial advertisement falsely representing himself as unmarried. Smt. Karuna Sharma responded to this advertisement, and they married on 15.12.1987. Upon arrival at his residence, Karuna Sharma discovered that Om Prakash Sharma already had a living wife. She suspected a criminal conspiracy involving Om Prakash Sharma, his first wife Reetu Sharma, and his mother Mehar Devi (petitioner No. 1) to contract a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife to obtain dowry. Karuna Sharma sent letters and telegrams to police authorities, leading to an investigation and registration of crime No. 64/89 for offences under Sections 494 and 420 IPC against the petitioners and reportedly against the deceased Reetu Sharma. After investigation, the police submitted a report, and the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 120-B, 494, 498-A, and 420 IPC. The petitioners are currently being tried for these offences.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the learned Magistrate could validly take cognizance of offences punishable under Chapter XX of the IPC on the basis of a police report, given the bar created by Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) requiring a complaint by an aggrieved person.
- Whether the police were competent to investigate both cognizable and non-cognizable offences arising from the complaint, particularly when the offences under Sections 420 and 494 IPC were involved.
- Whether the exceptions to the bar under Section 198 Cr. P.C. apply to offences under Section 498-A IPC, which is cognizable and punishable under Chapter XX-A of the IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Magistrate’s cognizance was invalid because, under Section 198 Cr. P.C., cognizance of offences under Chapter XX IPC could only be taken upon a complaint by an aggrieved person, not on a police report.
- Relying on precedents from this court and other High Courts as well as the Supreme Court, it was argued that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance on the police report for offences punishable under Chapter XX IPC.
Respondent's Arguments
- The learned Public Prosecutor supported the Magistrate’s order, implicitly endorsing the validity of cognizance taken on the police report.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ambey Prasad v. State of Raj | Requirement of complaint by aggrieved person for cognizance under Chapter XX IPC offences | The court acknowledged this principle but distinguished the present facts due to the presence of cognizable offences investigated by police. |
| Babu Bhai v. State of Gujrat | Bar on Magistrate taking cognizance on police report for non-cognizable offences under Chapter XX and XXI IPC | The court noted that these precedents involved only non-cognizable offences and did not apply to the present case involving cognizable offences. |
| Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Haji Ahmed | Mandate of complaint by aggrieved person for offences under Chapter XX IPC | The court respected this principle but found it inapplicable due to the mixed nature of offences and police investigation. |
| G. Narsimha v. Chokappa | Requirement of complaint for cognizance of offences relating to marriage under Chapter XX IPC | The court distinguished the case on the basis of the cognizable offence under Section 420 IPC allowing police investigation and subsequent police report. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court acknowledged the mandatory nature of Section 198 Cr. P.C., which bars courts from taking cognizance of offences under Chapter XX IPC except on a complaint by an aggrieved person. However, the court found the present case distinguishable because the complaint by Smt. Karuna Sharma disclosed the commission of both cognizable (Section 420 IPC) and non-cognizable (Section 494 IPC) offences. Under Section 155(4) Cr. P.C., police may investigate non-cognizable offences if committed alongside cognizable offences without Magistrate’s orders. Following investigation, the police submitted a report including offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 494, and 498-A IPC. Since Sections 120-B, 420, and 498-A are cognizable, the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance based on the police report for these offences and the associated non-cognizable offences. The court further distinguished the cited precedents because they dealt exclusively with non-cognizable offences under Chapter XX and XXI IPC, where police reports could not form the basis for cognizance. The court also noted that Section 498-A IPC, falling under Chapter XX-A, is a cognizable offence, and information given by the aggrieved or related persons suffices for police investigation and Magistrate’s cognizance. The court found the material before the Magistrate sufficient to justify framing charges against the petitioners.
Holding and Implications
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
The court upheld the Magistrate’s cognizance of offences based on the police report, clarifying that where cognizable and non-cognizable offences coexist, police investigation and subsequent cognizance on police report are valid. The decision confirms the applicability of Section 155(4) Cr. P.C. and the cognizability of offences under Section 498-A IPC, but does not establish any new precedent beyond the facts presented. The direct effect is that the trial against the petitioners may proceed on the charges framed.
M.A.A Khan, J.:— 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 a News-paper representing himself to be an un-married fellow and willing to marry 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 15.12.87 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 26.2.89 to the S.P Ajmer, who vide his order dated 27.2.89 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 u/Sec. 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 u/Sec., 120-B, 494, 498-A, 420 IPC. Smt. Mehar Devi, petitioner No. 1, has since been charged with the offence u/Sec. 498-A and Om Prakash Sharma, petitioner No. 2, with offences u/Sec. s. 420, 498-A, 120-B and 494 IP. They are reportedly being tried for those offences.
3. Relying upon the decisions of this court in the case of Ambey Prasad v. State of Raj. (1) of Gujrat High Court in the case of Babu Bhai v. State of Gujrat (2) and Supreme Court decision in the case of Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Haji Ahmed (3) and G. Narsimha v. Chokappa (4), it was submitted by Mr. P.K Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the cognizance, taken by the learned Magistrate in the present case, was invalid as the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of such offences on the basis of the police report in respect to the offences punishable under Chapter XX of the Penal Code, in view of the bar created u/S. 198 Cr. P.C The learned Public Prosecutor, however, supported the order under challenge.
4. There can hardly be any doubt that the provisions, contained in Sec. 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 views, 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 u/S. 420 and 494 IPC was registered. It may be appreciated that as per Scheduled II, the offence u/S. 494 IPC is a non-cognizable offence but the offence u/S. 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 u/S. 155 Cr. P.C Sub-Sec. (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 u/S. 420 IPC was cognizable offence, the offence u/S. 494 IPC, 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 u/Ss. 120-B, 420, 494, 498-A IPC. Out of these offences, the offences u/Ss. 120-B, 420 and 498-A 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.
5. In the cases, cited by the learned counsel, the offences in respect of which police reports were submitted, were punishable under Chapter XX and XXI of the Penal Code, Chapter XX of the IPC enumerates offences punishable u/Sec. s. 493 to 498 IPC. Chapter XXI of the IPC deals with offences u/Sec. 499 to 502 IPC. The offences under Chapter XX of the IPC are offences relating to marriage and the cognizance of such offences can be taken by a Magistrate only on the complaint of an aggrieved person, Chapter XXI of the IPC deals with the offences relating to defamation and the offences contemplated in this Chapter are also not cognizable in character like those contained in Chapter XX. It is thus clear that all the cases, related to the offences which were non-cognizable and the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance on police reports and/or on complaints, filed by persons other than the aggrieved persons.
6. However, the offence u/S. 498-A IPC falls under the Chapter XX-A and is a cognizable offence. Column (4) of Second Scheduled dealing with this offence says that the offence is cognizable if information, relating to the commission of the offence, is given to an officer-in-charge of a police station by the person aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by marriage or adoption or if there is not such relative, by any public servant. In view of this characteristic of these offences, the police report submitted by the police officer in the present case could have been made the basis for taking cognizance of offence u/S. 498-A IPC besides other cognizable and non-cognizable offences. In this state of affairs the proposition, laid down in the cited cases, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. It was not disputed before me that the material placed before the Magistrate does justify the framing of charges for offences u/Sec. s. 120-B, 420, 494, 498-A I.P.C against Om Prakash, petitioner No. 2, and u/Sec., 498-A IPC against Smt. Mehar Devi, petitioner No. 1.
8. In the result, the petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Alert