Judgment :- Common Judgment: 1. Crl.R.C.No. 1321 OF 2007 is directed against the order dated 5-9-2007 passed in Crl.M.P.No.140 of 2007 in S.C.No.413 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), Warangal, whereby and whereunder the learned III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the application of A-8-Sukhevale Swapna Bai filed under section 227 Cr.P.C. 2. Crl.R.C.No. 1322 OF 2007 is directed against the order dated 5-9-2007 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 139 of 2007 in S.C.No.413 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), Warangal whereby and whereunder the learned III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the application of A-1 to A-7 filed under section 227 Cr.P.C. 3. A report came to be presented by S.Anitha Bai before the S.H.O. Mills Colony P.S., alleging inter alia that the marriage between her and A-1-Sukkevale Vijay was solemnized on 22-1-1990 at Basti Teli Samaj Kachiguda, Hyderabad. At the time of marriage, A-1 to A-7 demanded 12 tolas of gold, cash of Rs.16,000/-, a TVS moped and household articles worth of Rs.13,000/-. Her parents complied the demand of A-1 to A-7. After the marriage, she joined A-1 for conjugal life at Uppuguda, Hyderabad. All the accused treated her properly for about two years. Thereafter they started harassing her mentally and physically to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her parents. She tolerated the harassment with a fond hope of change in the attitude of the accused. She narrated the harassment meted out by her in the hands of the accused to her elder brother namely Jeeti Rajender (LW-3), who in turn visited her matrimonial home and assured the accused that he would comply the demand. It is further alleged that A-1 to A-7 harassed her mentally and physically and necked her out from the matrimonial home. It is further alleged that A-1 to A-7 attempted to do away her life by setting ablaze. Subsequently, she came to know that A-2 to A-6 performed the marriage of A-1 with A-8-Sukhevale Swapna Bai at Guha Mandir Mangalhat, Hyderabad, and the same was witnessed by LW-6-Surya. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Mills Colony, received the report submitted by LW-1 Sukhevale Anitha Bai and registered a case in Crime No. 303 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 494, 307 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Mills Colony, received the report submitted by LW-1 Sukhevale Anitha Bai and registered a case in Crime No. 303 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 494, 307 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After due investigation, a charge sheet came to be submitted before I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. 4. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C.No.303 of 2006 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, Warangal, 5. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C.No. 413 of 2007 and made over the same to III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), Warangal for disposal according to law. 6. A-1 to A-7 filed Crl.M.P.No.139 of 2007 and whereas A-8 filed Crl.M.P.No. 140 of 2007 in S.C.No.413 of 2007 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. They contended before the trial Court that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal and therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not have committed the case to the Sessions Division, Warangal. A further contention was advanced that offence under Section 494 I.P.C. being a non-cognizable offence, police ought not have proceeded with the investigation without obtaining prior permission as provided under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel reiterated the self same contentions before me. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai (2004 Criminal Law Journal 4180), and the decision of Bombay High Court in Deokabai Vs. Namdeo Dhoke (1995(2) Crimes 443). 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that where a case relates to two or more offences of which one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case notwithstanding that the other offence is non-cognizable and therefore, the police is justified in proceeding with the investigation and filing the charge sheet. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Sharat Chandra Sahu (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1). 8. The question that arises for consideration in these two revisions is, whether police can, in case of complaint comprising of cognizable and non-cognizable offence, investigate non-cognizable also as cognizable offence irrespective of the fact as to who filed it? 9. Sharat Chandra Sahu (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1). 8. The question that arises for consideration in these two revisions is, whether police can, in case of complaint comprising of cognizable and non-cognizable offence, investigate non-cognizable also as cognizable offence irrespective of the fact as to who filed it? 9. This question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Sharat Chandra Sahu’s case wherein it has been held in paras 9 to 14 as under: “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 498-A, 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 to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer, the informant 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) 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. 12. Sub-section (4) of Section 155 is a new provision introduced for the first time in the Code of 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 case shall, in that situation, be treated as cognizable. 13. This Court in Praveen Chandra Mody V. State of A.P. AIR 1965 SC 1185 has held that while investigating a cognizable offence and presenting a charge-sheet for it, the police are not debarred from investigating 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)” 10. 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)” 10. In view of the above referred decision, the proposition of law is well settled 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 legal fiction enacted in sub-section 4 of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. provided that even non-cognizable case shall in that situation, be treated as cognizable. 11. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Warangal Court to initiate proceeding under Section 494 I.P.C. and therefore, the Court at Warangal has no jurisdiction. His contention can be repelled by referring to sub-section (2) of Section 182 Cr.P.C. which reads as under: “(2) Any offence punishable under Section 495 or Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage (or the wife by first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of offence)” 12. It is specifically averred by the complainant that she has been residing with her parents in Kareemabad village, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. 13. Therefore, I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the trial Court. 14. Accordingly, both the revisions are dismissed at the admission stage.