Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Therefore, the point is answered accordingly and affirmatively in favour of the revision petitioner.
POINT NO.2:
The second ground of attack of the revision petitioner is that the Court cannot take cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC unless a complaint is filed by the aggrieved party before the concerned Court as per the mandate of Section 198 Cr.P.C. Therefore, taking cognizance of the case in the instant case for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC on the basis of the final report/charge-sheet filed by the police contrary to the bar contained in Section 198 Cr.P.C. is bad in law and it cannot be sustained. I find considerable force in the said contention of the learned senior counsel.

The said Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment Act 3 of 1992 was reserved by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on the 21.10.1991 for consideration and assent of the President. The Presidential assent was received on 10.02.1992 and the amendment was published on 15.02.1992 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part IV-B (Ext.). Therefore, with effect from 15.02.1992 undoubtedly the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 IPC are cognizable offences in the State of Andhra Pradesh. So, the police officer can now register the case under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and can investigate the same under Section 156 Cr.P.C. The bar engrafted under Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of the case under Section 494 IPC is on the Court and not on the police. So, in view of the fact that it is a cognizable offence, police can register the case on a report lodged with them to that effect and also investigate the case and file final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Now, the crucial question that arises for consideration is, whether Court can take cognizance of the case on such police report/charge-sheet filed by the police or not in view of the express bar engrafted under Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. on the Court to take cognizance of the case except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved party before it.

Therefore, as per the definition of complaint under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., any oral or written allegation that some person whether known or unknown has committed an offence made to a Magistrate to take action under the Code is a complaint and police report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is specifically excluded from its purview. Section 2(r) Cr.P.C. defines "police report" which means a report forwarded by a police officer to Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173, which is generally termed as charge- sheet. So, only when an allegation relating to the offence under Section 494 IPC is made by the aggrieved person to the Magistrate, then only the Court can take cognizance of the case. Certainly the Court cannot take cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC on a police report/charge-sheet filed by the police. Eventhough offence under Section 494 IPC is made "cognizable" offence as per amendment Act 3 of 1992, there is no corresponding amendment made to Section 198 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the bar under Section 198 Cr.P.C. still subsists. The legal position in this regard is not res nova and it has been clearly well settled.

Therefore, in the instant case, as there was no complaint filed before the court by the aggrieved person, who is no more or even by any of the persons on her behalf as contemplated under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 198 Cr.P.C. before the Court, cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC cannot be taken by the Court in view of the express bar engrafted in Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of the said case. Therefore, taking cognizance of the case in the instant case for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC is also legally unsustainable. Even on that ground, the petitioner, who is accused No.2, cannot be charged for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC and tried for the said offence by the Sessions Court, Kurnool. This point is also answered affirmatively in favour of the revision petitioner.