NON-REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 562 OF 2012 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 2445 OF 2010]

USHABEN … APPELLANT

Versus

KISHORBHAI CHUNILAL TALPADA AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  

learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  of  Gujarat  partly  

allowing the petition filed by the respondents under Section  

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the  

Code”).  The  prayer  made  by  respondents  1  to  9  was  to  

quash  the  complaint  filed  by  the  appellant  against  them

under Sections 498A, 494, 506(2) read with Section 114 of  

the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and under Sections 3  

and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The appellant is the original complainant.  Respondents  

1 to 9 are original accused 1 to 9 respectively.  Respondent  

2  is  the  husband  of  the  appellant,  respondents  8  is  the  

second wife of respondent 2 and respondents 1, 3 to 7 and 9  

are family members of respondent 2 or respondent 8.

4. Gist of the facts stated in the complaint is as under:  

The  appellant  got  married  to  respondent  2  on  

7.12.2000.  She lived with respondent 2 in the joint family till  

18.1.2006. During this period the appellant gave birth to two  

children. On 30.7.2007 the appellant was forced to leave the  

matrimonial home due to the cruelty meted out to her in the  

matrimonial home. During the subsistence of the appellant’s  

marriage  with  respondent  2  in  2008,  respondent  2  got  

married  to  respondent  8.   Sometime  in  2009,  when  the  

appellant  came  to  know  about  the  second  marriage  of  

2

respondent 2, she lodged a complaint against respondent 1  

to  9  for  alleged commission of  offences punishable  under  

Sections 498A, 494, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC  

and under Sections 3 and 7 of  the Dowry Prohibition Act.  

Nadiad Rural Police Station, District Kheda registered it as  

CR No. 24 of 2009.  

5. Thereafter,  respondents  1  to  9 moved an application  

before  the  Gujarat  High  Court  under  Section  482  of  the  

Code,  contending,  inter  alia,  that  cognizance  of  offence  

under  Section  494  of  the  IPC  can  be  taken  only  on  the  

complaint made by an aggrieved person and inasmuch as in  

this case the complaint is not made by the aggrieved person,  

the police could not have taken cognizance of offence under  

Section 494 of the IPC.  

6. Before  the  High  Court,  a  statement  was  made  that  

respondents 1 to 9 were not pressing prayer made in the  

petition for quashing of offences under Section 498A, 506(2)  

read with Section 114 of the IPC as against respondents 1 to  

3

5.  It was, however, made clear that prayer for quashing of  

offence  under  Section  494  of  the  IPC  was  being  pressed  

against all the accused i.e. respondents 1 to 9.

7. The  High  Court  accepted  the  contention  raised  by  

respondents 1 to  9  and relying on its  earlier  judgment in  

Babubhai  Madhavlal  Patel  and  Anr.  vs.  State  of   

Gujarat  1  ,  the  High  Court  quashed  the  complaint  qua  

respondents 6 to 9 against whom only allegation of bigamy  

was made.  So far as respondents 1 to 5 are concerned the  

High Court ordered deletion of offence under section 494 of  

the  IPC  from  the  complaint  and  directed  that  the  

investigation of the other offences should proceed.   Being  

aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed this  

appeal.

8. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1  

to 9.   At the outset, we must note that the appellant-wife  

has  lodged  the  instant  complaint  inter  alia  alleging  

1 1969 Cri. L. J. 567

4

commission of offence under Section 494 of the IPC.  The  

complaint  is  at  investigation  stage.   The  police  can,  

therefore, legally investigate it.  However, it is necessary to  

refer to certain provisions of the Code and IPC because the  

High Court in our opinion has wrongly relied on its earlier  

judgment in Babubhai Patel which relates to cognizance of  

offences falling in Chapter XX of the Code by a Court.   

9. We shall now quote the relevant sections of the IPC and  

the Code. Section 494 of the IPC falls in Chapter XX of the  

IPC.  Chapter XX pertains to offences relating to marriage.  

So far as it is relevant, Section 494 reads as under:

“494. Marrying again during lifetime of  husband or wife.- Whoever, having a husband or   wife  living,  marries  in  any  case  in  which  such   marriage  is  void  by  reason  of  its  taking  place  during the life of such husband or wife, shall be   punished with imprisonment of either description   for a term which may extend to seven years, and   shall also be liable to fine.”

Section  190  of  the  Code  states  when  cognizance  of  

offences can be taken by a Magistrate. It reads as under:

5

“190.  Cognizance  of  offences  by  Magistrates-  (1) Subject to the provisions of this   Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, specially   empowered in this behalf under sub- section (2),   may take cognizance of any offence-   (a) Upon  receiving  a  complaint  of  facts  which   

constitute such offence;   (b) Upon police report of such facts;   (c) Upon information received from any person  

other than a police officer, or upon his own   knowledge,  that  such  offence  has  been   committed.

 (2)  The  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  may  empower   any  Magistrate  of  the  second  class  to  take   cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences   as  are  within  his  competence to  inquire  into  or   try.”

Section  198  of  the  Code  pertains  to  prosecution  for  

offences  against  marriage.   Sub-Section  1  thereof  is  

relevant.  It reads as under:   

“198. Prosecution  for  offences  against   marriage.- (1) No court shall take cognizance of an   offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian   Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint   made by some person aggrieved by the offence.”  

Section 198 (1)(c) of the Code reads as under :

6

“198(1)(c).  Where the person aggrieved by  an  offence  punishable  under  (section  494  or   Section 495) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)   is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf   by  her  father,  mother,  brother,  sister,  son  or   daughter or by her father’s or mother’s brother or   sister, (with the leave of the Court) by any other   person  related  to  her  by  blood,  marriage  or   adoption).”

The  above  provisions  indicate  that  whereas  Section  

190(1) empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of any  

offence, upon receiving complaint of facts which constitute  

such  offence;  upon  police  report  of  such  facts;  upon  

information received from any person other  than a  police  

officer or  upon his knowledge that such offence has been  

committed,  Section  198  which  relates  to  prosecution  of  

offences against marriage brings in the concept of complaint  

by an aggrieved person and Section 198(1)(c) explains how  

far the scope of term ‘aggrieved person’ can be extended in  

the context of offence under Section 494 of the IPC.  

10. We must now turn to Section 198-A of  the Code.   It  

reads thus:

7

“198-A. Prosecution  of  offences  under   Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. - No Court   shall  take  cognizance  of  an  offence  punishable   under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45  of  1860)  except  upon  a  police  report  of  facts   which constitute such offence or upon a complaint   made by the person aggrieved by the offence or   by  her  father,  mother,  brother,  sister  or  by  her   father’s or mother’s brother or sister or, with the   leave of the Court, by any other person related to   her by blood, marriage or adoption.”

11. A  conjoint  reading  of  the  above  provisions  makes  it  

clear that a complaint under Section 494 of the IPC must be  

made by the aggrieved person.  Section 498A does not fall in  

Chapter XX of the IPC.  It falls in Chapter XXA.  Section 198A  

which we have quoted hereinabove, permits a court to take  

cognizance of offence punishable under Section 498A upon a  

police report of facts which constitute offence.  It must be  

borne in mind that all these provisions relate to cognizance  

of the offence by the court.  

12. Complaint  is  defined under Section 2(d) of  the Code.  

The definition reads as under:

8

“2(d). “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  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.”

Explanation to Section 2(d) makes it clear that a report  

made  by  a  police  officer  after  investigation  of  a  non-

cognizable offence is to be treated as a complaint and the  

officer by whom such a report is made is to be deemed to be  

the complainant.   

13. Above  provisions,  lead  us  to  conclude  that  if  a  

complaint contains allegations about commission of offence  

under Section 498A of the IPC which is a cognizable offence,  

apart  from  allegations  about  the  commission  of  offence  

under Section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance  

thereof even on a police report.   

9

14. Reliance  placed  by  the  High  Court  on  its  earlier  

judgment in Babubhai Patel is misplaced.  In that case, the  

High  Court  was  dealing  with  all  offences  falling  under  

Chapter XX of the IPC.   Initially, the accused were charged  

under Section 417 read with Section 114 of the IPC.  That  

charge was given a go-by and a fresh charge in respect of  

Sections 493 to 496 of the IPC was framed.  These, offences  

fall in Chapter XX of the IPC.  Therefore, the High Court held  

that cognizance thereof can be taken by the Magistrate only  

on the basis of complaint filed under Section 190(1)(a) of the  

Code by  an  aggrieved person.   That  judgment  cannot  be  

applied  to  the  present  case.   Facts  of  that  case  were  

different  and  there  the  High  Court  was  dealing  with  

cognizance of the offences falling under Chapter XX by the  

Magistrate.   Upshot  of  the  above  discussion  is  that,  no  

fetters  can  be  put  on  the  police  preventing  them  from  

investigating  the  complaint  which  alleges  offence  under  

Section 498A of the IPC and also offence under Section 494  

of the IPC.  In the circumstances, the appeal must succeed.  

The impugned order is set aside.  Obviously, therefore, the  

1

direction to delete Section 494 of the IPC is set aside.  The  

police shall investigate the complaint in accordance with law.  

15. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.  

……………………………………………..J. (AFTAB ALAM)

……………………………………………..J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

NEW DELHI, MARCH 23, 2012.

1