Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The petitioners are A1 and A2 in C.C.No.120 of 2017. The first petitioner is the alleged paramour of the second petitioner and the complainant, by name, Rayudu Adilakshmi, is the wife of first petitioner/A1.

4. The main contention urged by the petitioners in the present petition is that the complaint is not maintainable as the wife of A1 i.e., second respondent, is incompetent to file a complaint in view of the bar under Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C., and consequently, taking MSM,J cognizance of offence by the trial Court against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 497 is illegal and prayed to quash the proceedings.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to quash the proceedings for the offence under Section 497 of IPC based on Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C., as the Court is incompetent to take cognizance on the complaint of the second respondent, who is the wife of A1. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in V. Revathi v. Union of India and others1.

6. Whereas Sri T.S.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent, contended that the law declared by the Apex Court in V. Revathi's case, referred supra, was not accepted by the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v. Union of India2 and the issue was referred to larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement and therefore, based on the principle in V. Revathi's case, referred supra, the Court cannot quash the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 497 IPC based on 198(1) of Cr.P.C. and requested to pass appropriate orders.

An offence punishable under Section 497 IPC is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by the Magistrate of First Class. According to Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. In the present case, the first petitioner/A1 is the paramour of A2 and the person aggrieved is only the husband of A2. Therefore, the husband of the second petitioner/A2 alone is competent to file a complaint, but not the wife of paramour of A2 and this view is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in V. Revathi's case, referred supra, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

But, in the later judgment in Joseph Shine's case, referred supra, the Apex Court took a different view and a reference is made to the larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement, but till today, the law laid down by the Apex Court in V. Revathi's case holds the field and is binding precedent. Thus, as on today, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in V. Revathi's case, referred supra, the Magistrate is incompetent to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 497 IPC in view of the bar under Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 497 IPC against the petitioners is hereby set aside while permitting the Magistrate to proceed with the trial against the petitioners for the offence under Section 494 IPC.