N. G. SHELAT, J. ( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to these two applications in revision before this Court broadly stated are that one Hasumatis marriage was settled with accused No. 1 on or about 13-12-65 at Ahmedabad and a writing in that respect came to be executed by him in favour of Hasumati In that writing in addition to certain terms agreed to between them It was stated that the accused No. 1 was not married and that in those circumstances their marriage took place on the next day. She then lived with her husband-accused No. 1 and had even sexual intercourse. Sometime after Hasumati came to know that her husband was already married before and that his first wife was living. That led her to lodge a complaint before the police in respect of offences under secs. 420-117 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 were said to have abetted the commission of the said offence as it was through them that her marriage with accused No. 1 was brought about. After finishing the investigation of the case the charge-sheet against all the three accused was sent up to the Court of the City Magistrate Ahmedabad. ( 2 ) ON the basis of the police papers in the case the learned Magistrate at first framed a charge as per Ex. 2 on 25-8-65 against all the three accused. By that while accused No. 1 was alleged to have deceived or dishonestly induced the complainant Hasumati to marry with him by saying that he was an unmarried person so as to be liable under sec. 417 of the Indian Penal Code the two other accused Nos. 2 and 3 were said to have abetted accused No. 1 in committing the said offence so as to be liable for an offence under sec. 417 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. To that the accused pleaded not guilty. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the evidence of Hasumati came to be recorded in the case. On the strength of her evidence the learned Police Prosecutor in charge of the case before the trial Court presented a report Ex. 9 requesting the Court to amend the charge urging that the charge for offences under secs. 493 494 495 496 against accused No. 1 and for offences under secs. On the strength of her evidence the learned Police Prosecutor in charge of the case before the trial Court presented a report Ex. 9 requesting the Court to amend the charge urging that the charge for offences under secs. 493 494 495 496 against accused No. 1 and for offences under secs. 493 494 495 496 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Nos. 2 and 3 should be framed. After hearing the learned advocate for the accused the learned Magistrate framed the charge at Ex. 10 for those offences accordingly. Since some of those offences under secs. 493 495 and 496 were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions the learned Magistrate committed all the accused to stand their trial in respect of all the offences before the Court of City Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad under sec. 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Though no order is passed with regard to the earlier charge under sec. 417 and sec. 417 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code it has to be taken that the accused were discharged in that respect. In fact while framing the charge the earlier charge was allowed to have been given a go-by. Feeling aggrieved by that order of commitment passed on 29-12-1966 by Mr. B. J. Shelat City Magistrate 4 Court Ahmedabad while accused No. 1 has filed Application No. 31/67 in revision the other two accused have filed an application No. 44/67 in revision before this Court. ( 4 ) NOW an order of commitment made under sec. 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code by a competent Magistrate as laid down under sec. 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be quashed only by the High Court and only on a point of law. The point of law raised by Mr. Patel the learned advocate for the applicants-accused is that in view of sec. 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of offences under secs. 493 to 496 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offences and since there was no complaint from Hasumati as contemplated under sec. 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of offences under secs. 493 to 496 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offences and since there was no complaint from Hasumati as contemplated under sec. 4 (1) (h) of the Criminal Procedure Code the order of commitment passed by the learned Magistrate in respect of those offences was bad in law and that way liable to be quashed. The charge levelled against all the accused is in respect of offences relating to cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage or by concealment of his former marriage etc. contemplated under secs. 493 to 496 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of such offences the Court can take cognizance only upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offence. The cognizance of offences by a Magistrate has to be taken as provided under sec. 190 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Now as provided therein except has hereinafter provided. . . . . . . . . any Presidency Magistrate (in this case the City Magistrate ). . . . . . . . . may take cognizance of any offence (A) upon receiving B complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police-officer; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge or suspicion that such offence has been committed. The charge-sheet or the report sent up by the police officer makes no reference about any such offences such as secs. 493 to 496 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of which the accused are committed to the Court of Sessions. That charge-sheet was in respect of offences under secs. 420 and 417 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Nor would the case come within clause (c) and it would therefore clearly fall within clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The mere fact that cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on a police report would make no difference as it was not for offences under secs. 493 to 496 of the Indian Penal Code. If they were tried only for offence under sec. (1) of sec. 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The mere fact that cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on a police report would make no difference as it was not for offences under secs. 493 to 496 of the Indian Penal Code. If they were tried only for offence under sec. 417 and sec. 417 read with sec 114 of the Indian Penal Code as per the original charge framed by the Court there was no difficulty. But that charge was given a go-by and a fresh charge is one in respect of offences under secs. 493 to 496 of the Indian Penal Code. Since they fall under sec. 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code the cognizance thereof has to be on the basis of the complaint falling under sec. (1) (a) of the Code. ( 5 ) NOW the term complaint has been defined under sec. 4 (1) (h) as meaning the allegations made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under this Code that some person whether known or unknown has committed an offence but it does not include the report of a police officer. Thus the Magistrate must have a complaint filed by Hasumati herself before him and at any rate not on the basis of a report or a charge-sheet from the police officer in respect of such offences for which the accused have been committed to the Court of Sessions. No such complaint has been given by Bai Hasumati before the learned City Magistrate in respect of any such offences under secs. 493 494 495 and 496. It would therefore follow that unless there was any complaint by Bai Hasumati who was the person aggrieved the Court was not competent to take cognizance in respect of the offences falling under those sections as contemplated in sec. 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code. When that is so the learned Magistrate was not even competent to go ahead with the case hold an inquiry against the accused in respect of those offences and even commit them to stand their trial for those offences under sec. 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The order of commitment passed by the learned City Magistrate was therefore beyond his competence and invalid. It is liable to be set aside. 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The order of commitment passed by the learned City Magistrate was therefore beyond his competence and invalid. It is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) IN the result the order of commitment passed by the learned Magistrate against all the three accused is quashed under sec. 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Order set aside. .