Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 494 (AP)

Satyavathi v. State of A. P.

2006-04-06

P.S.NARAYANA

body2006
ORDER Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, Counsel for 2nd respondent and the learned public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent. 2. Sri P.Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner/A-2 would maintain the at the offences under Sections 494 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter in short referred to as "IPC") are non-cognizable offences. The learned Counsel also would contend that as per Section 198(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short hereinafter referred to as "Code"), no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even as per the complaint and the charge sheet, the petitioner has been serving A-1 as a cook and servant maid only and hence the allegation and charge under Section 494 IPC are not attracted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the contents of the First Information Report and the other relevant material and would contend that it would be appropriate to permit the parties to agitate this question at the stage of trial. 4. Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 2nd respondent had drawn the attention of this Court to several of the factual details and would contend that in the light of the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code, in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that in view of the fact that the charge sheet was laid under Section 494 IPC the same cannot be proceeded with, the same can be treated as a complaint made by Venkata Jayalukshamma, the 2nd respondent herein/complainant and further proceedings can be proceeded with. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even if the proceedings under Section 494 IPC to be quashed, the other offence under Section 506 IPC also is there and hence at any rate the Criminal Petition cannot be allowed. 5. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code. The petitioner/A-2 filed the present Criminal Petition praying for calling for the records relating to C.C.No.267/2002 on the file of the Court of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Cuddapah and quashing the same and pass such other suitable orders. 5. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code. The petitioner/A-2 filed the present Criminal Petition praying for calling for the records relating to C.C.No.267/2002 on the file of the Court of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Cuddapah and quashing the same and pass such other suitable orders. The present petitioner/A-2 along with A-1 are accused of having committed the offences under Sections 494 and 506 IPC in Cr.No.5/2002 of Women Police Station, Cuddapah. The charge sheet was filed on 31-8-2002 and the case is pending as C.C.No.267/2002 on the file of the Court of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Cuddapah. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant gave a complaint to the Police Station on 4-7-2002 stating that her husband A-1 and the present petitioner/A-2 are married and living as husband and wife. Her specific case is that her husband Subbaramayya married her about 48 years ago and they have three sons and four daughters but however about 15 months prior to the complaint her husband married the present petitioner again. She had narrated several other details. No doubt it is stated that he husband insisted her to give divorce for facilitating him to have second marriage and it is also stated that about 20 years prior to the complaint he filed a divorce case against her and the same was dismissed. It is also stated that he is threatening her that he would kill her if divorce is not given. Several other factual details had been narrated in relation to the offences under Sections 494 and 506 IPC. 6. On a careful reading of the allegations made in the charge sheet, no allegations in relation to the offence under Section 506 IPC are made as against the petitioner/A-2. The only allegation that survives is that A-1 married A-2 and A-1 and A-2 have been living as husband and wife. No doubt the specific stand taken by the petitioner is that the petitioner was just cooking food for A-1. It also appears that the Chief Examination of P.W.-1 was completed in the case. The charge sheet filed as against the petitioner/A-2 in relation to the offence under Section 494 IPC cannot be sustained in the light of the clear language of Section 198 of the Code. It also appears that the Chief Examination of P.W.-1 was completed in the case. The charge sheet filed as against the petitioner/A-2 in relation to the offence under Section 494 IPC cannot be sustained in the light of the clear language of Section 198 of the Code. In D. Vijaya Lakshmi v. D. Sanjeeva Reddy 2000 (2) ALT (Crl.) 136 (A.P.) it was held that the Court is precluded from taking cognizance of the offence under Section 494 IPC though the investigating agency can register a case and investigate into the offence and the bar is for the Court and not for the investigating agency and hence taking cognizance of the case was held to be bad. Hence, so far as the charge under Section 494 IPC as against the petitioner/A-2 is concerned, the same cannot be further proceeded with and taking cognizance of the case on the strength of either police report or charge sheet cannot be sustained. 7. Certain submissions were made in relation to the definition of "complaint". Section 2 of the Code deals with Definitions and Section 2(d) specifies: "In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires "complaint" means any allegation 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 a police report. Explanation: A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant." The words "the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant" no doubt would assume some importance. On the strength of the same, certain submissions were made that this can be treated as a private complaint and having been made by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant further proceedings may be proceeded with. This Court is not inclined to accept the same since the very cognizance was taken on the strength of the charge-sheet. 8. As far as the other offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, as already observed supra, absolutely there are no allegations against the petitioner/A-2. This Court is not inclined to accept the same since the very cognizance was taken on the strength of the charge-sheet. 8. As far as the other offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, as already observed supra, absolutely there are no allegations against the petitioner/A-2. In view of the same, the proceedings in C.C.No.267/2002 on the file of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Cuddapah are hereby quashed so far as they relate to the petitioner/A-2. Accordingly the Criminal Petition shall stand allowed to the extent indicated above.