STATE OF ORISSA versus SHARAT CHANDRA SAHU AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 304 · Decided: 08-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF ORISSA 
v. 
SHARAT CHANDRA SAHU AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 8, 1996 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: 
Ss. 494 and 498A--Bigamy and dowry harassment-Women's Commis-
C sion sending the complaint of wife to police-Case against the husband for 
offences under ss. 494 and 498A registered and Charge-Sheet filed-Sub 
Divisional Magistrate framed charges on a petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. by the 
husband, High Cowt quashed the charge u/s. 494 /PC holding that since the 
wife had r.,ot herself personally filed the complaint u/s. 494 its cognizance 
D could not have been taken by the Magistrate-Held, High Court erred in 
quashing the charge-Judgment of High Court to that exte.nt is set 
aside-Magistrate would proceed with the case. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
E 
Ss. 155(4) and 198(1)-lnvestigation of cognizable and non-cognizable 
offence~~Women's Commission sending to police a complaint of the wife 
against her husband for offences u/ss. 494 and 498A /PC-Police investigated 
into the alleged offences and filed charge-sheet under both the courts-Held, 
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 
F investigating both the offences as the legal fiction enacted in sub-section ( 4) 
of s.155 provides that even non-cognizable case shall, in that situation, be 
treated as cognizable. 
Preveen Chandra Mody v. State of M.P., AIR (1965) SC 1185, relied 
G on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
768 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.95 of the Orissa High Court 
H in Crl. M.C. No. 1169 of 1994. 
304 
STATE v. S.C. SAHU 
305 
Jana Kalyan Das for the Appellant. 
A 
Satyapal Khushal Chand Pasi for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Respondent No.1 is the husband of respon-
B 
dent 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 LP.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 LP.C. for which C 
respondent No.l was liable to be punished. 
2. The Women's Commission sent the complaint to the 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 D 
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 E 
Misc. Case No.1169/94) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proce-
dure (for short, Code) in the Orissa High Court for quashing the proceed-
ings 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 LP.C., its cognizance could not have been taken by the 
Magistrate in view of the provisions contained in Section 198(1) of the 
Code. Consequen_tly, the charge framed by the Magistrate under Section 
494 l.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 
F 
G 
of the charge under Section 494 I.P.C., is wholly erroneous and is based H 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A on complete ignorance of the relevant statutory provisions. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
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 und
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.