http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHARAT CHANDRA SAHU & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/10/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      S.Saghir Ahmad, J.      Respondent No.1  is the  husband of respondent No.2 who made a  complaint  in  writing  to  the  Women’s  Commission setting out  therein that  respondent No.1  had contracted a second marriage and had thus committed an offence punishable under Section 494 I.P.C.. It was also alleged that eversince the marriage  with her, he had been making demands for money being paid  to him  which amounted  to  her  harassment  and constituted the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. for which respondent No.1 was liable to be punished. 2.   The Women’s  Commission sent  the complaint  to  police station where G.R.Case No.418 of 1993 was registered against respondent No.1.  The police investigated the case and filed a charge-sheet  in  the  court  of  Sub-Divisional  Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur,  who, after  perusal  of  the  charge- sheet, framed  charges against respondent No.1 under Section 498A as also under Section 494 IPC. 3.   Aggrieved by  The framing  of the  charge by  the  Sub- Divisional Judicial  Magistrate, Anandpur,  respondent  No.1 filed a  petition (Criminal  Misc.  Case  No.1169/94)  under Section 482  of the  Code of  Criminal Procedure (for short, Code, in  the Orissa High Court for quashing the proceedings and the  charges framed  against him.  The High Court by its impugned Judgment  dated 3.5.95  partly allowed the petition with the findings that since respondent No.2 had not herself personally filed the complaint under Section 494 I.P.C., its cognizance could  not have  been taken  by the Magistrate in view of  the provisions  contained in  Section 198(1) of the Code. Consequently,  the charge  framed  by  the  Magistrate under Section  494 I.P.C.  was quashed  but the charge under Section 498A  I.P.C. was  maintained and  the petition under Section 482,  Criminal Procedure  Code to  that  extent  was dismissed. 4.   It is this Judgment which has been challenged before us by the  State of  Orissa. We  have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5.   The Judgment  of the High Court so far as it relates to the quashing  of the  charge under  Section 494  I.P.C.,  is wholly erroneous  and is  based on complete ignorance of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

relevant statutory provisions. 6.   The first  Schedule appended to the Code indicates that the offence  under Section  494 I.P.C. is non-cognizable and bailable. It is thus obvious that  the police could not take cognizance of  this offence  and that  a complaint had to be filed before a Magistrate. 7.   Relevant portion  of Section  198 which  deals with the prosecution for Offences against Marriage provides as under:      "198.  Prosecution   for   offences      against marriage.-  (1 )  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      some  person   aggrieved   by   the      offence:      Provided that-      (a) where  such person is under the      age of  eighteen years,  or  is  an      idiot or  a  lunatic,  or  is  from      sickness  or  infirmity  unable  to      make a  complaint, or  is  a  woman      who, according to the local customs      and  manners,   ought  not   to  be      compelled to appear in public, some      other person may, with the leave of      the Court,  make a complaint on his      or her behalf;      (b)  where   such  person   is  the      husband and he is serving in any of      the Armed Forces of the Union under      conditions which  are certified  by      his    Commanding     Officer    as      precluding him from obtaining leave      of absence  to enable him to make a      complaint  in  person,  some  other      person authorised by the husband in      accordance with  the provisions  of      sub-section   (4)    may   make   a      complaint on his behalf;      (c) there  the person  aggrieved by      an   offence    punishable    under      [Section 494 or section 495) of the      Indian Penal  Code (45  of 1860) is      the wife,  complain may  be made on      her behalf  by her  father, mother,      sister, son  or daughter  or by her      father’s  or  mother’s  brother  or      sister [,or,  with the leave of the      Court, by  any other person related      to  her   by  blood,   marriage  or      adoption.]      (2)................................      (3)................................      (4)................................      (5)................................      (6)................................      (7)................................ . 8.   These provisions  set out the prohibition for the Court from  taking  cognizance  of  an  offence  punishable  under Chapter  XX  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code.  The  cognizance, however, can  be taken  only if the complaint is made by the person aggrieved  by the  offence. Clause(c) appended to the Proviso to  Sub-section (1)  provides that  where  a  person

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

aggrieved is the wife, a complaint may be made on her behalf by her  father, mother,  brother, sister, son or daughter or other relations  mentioned therein who are related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. 9.   The High  Court relied upon the provisions contained in Clause (c)  and held  that since  the wife  herself had  not filed the complaint and Women’s Commission had complained to the police, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur could not  legally take cognizance of the offence. In laying down this  proposition, the High Court forgot that the other offence namely,  the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. was a cognizable offence  and the  police  was  entitled  to  take cognizance of  the offence  irrespective of  the person  who gave the  first information to it. It is provided in Section 155 as under:-      "155.  Information   as   to   non-      cognizable cases  and investigation      of such  cases.(1) When information      is given to an officer in charge of      a police  station of the commission      within the  limits of  such station      of  a  non-cognizable  offence,  he      shall enter  or cause to be entered      the substance of the information in      a book tobe kept by such officer in      such form  as the  State Government      may prescribe  in this  behalf, and      refer,  the  information  to    the      Magistrate.      (2)   No   police   officer   shall      investigate a  non-cognizable  case      without the  order of  a Magistrate      having power  to try  such case  or      commit the case for trial.      (3) Any  police  officer  receiving      such order  may exercise  the  same      powers   in    respect    of    the      investigation (except  the power to      arrest  without   warrant)  as   an      officer  in   charge  of  a  police      station   may    exercise   in    a      cognizable case.      (4) Where  a case relates to two or      more offences of which at least one      is cognizable,  the case  shall  be      deemed to  be  a  cognizable  case,      notwithstanding  that   the   other      offences are non cognizable." 10.  Sub-section (4) of this Section clearly provides that where the case relates to two offences of which one is cognizable,  the case  shall be deemed to be a cognizable case notwithstanding  that the other offence or offences are non-cognizable. 11.  Sub-section (4)  creates a  legal fiction  and provides that although  a case  may comprise  of several  offences of which some  are cognizable  and others are not, it would not be open to the police to investigate the cognizable offences only and  omit the  non-cognizable offences. Since the whole case (comprising  of cognizable and non-cognizable offences) is to  be treated a cognizable, the police had no option but to investigate the whole of the case and to submit a charge- sheet in  respect of  all the  offences, cognizable  or non- cognizable both,  provided it  is found by the police during investigation that the offences appear, prima facie, to have been committed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

12.  Sub-section (4)  of Section  155  is  a  new  provision introduced for  the first time in the Code in 1973. This was done to overcome the controversy about investigation of non- cognizable offences  by the  police without the leave of the Magistrate. The statutory provision is specific, precise and clear and  there is no ambiguity in the language employed in sub-section (4).  It is  apparent that if the facts reported to the  police disclose  both cognizable  and non-cognizable offences, the police would be acting within the scope of its authority in  investigating both  the offences  as the legal fiction enacted  in Sub-section  (4) provides that even non- cognizable. 13.  This Court  in Preveen  Chandra Mody  vs. State of M.P. AIR 1965  SC  1185  has  held  that  while  investigating  a cognizable offences  and presenting  a charge-sheet  for it, the police  are not  debarred from  investigation  any  non- cognizable  offence  arising  out  of  the  same  facts  and including them in the charge-sheet. 14.  The High  Court was  thus clearly  in error in quashing the charge  under Section  494 I.P.C. on the ground that the Trial Court could not take cognizance of that offence unless a complaint  was filed  personally by  the wife or any other near relation  contemplated by  Clause (c) of the Proviso to Section 198(1). 15.  The Judgment  of the  High Court being erroneous has to be set  aside .  The appeal  is  consequently  allowed.  The Judgment and  order dated 3rd May, 1995 passed by the Orissa High Court  in so  far as  it purports  to quash  the charge under  Section  494  I.P.C.  and  the  proceedings  relating thereto is set aside with the direction to the Magistrate to proceed with the case and dispose it of expeditiously .