Honble 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 wil- ling 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 let- ters 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). 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 vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (1) of Gujrat High Court in the case of Babu Bhai vs. State of Gujrat (2) and Supreme Court decision in the case of Abdul Rehman vs. Mohd. Haji Ahmed (3) and G. Narsimha vs. 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. 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 inves- tigation 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 proposi- tion, 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.