HANS RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner (accused) prays for the setting aside of the order dismissing the application bthe petitioner for r dropping of the charge under Section 494, IPC.

(2.) The say of the petitioner is that his wife Smt. Asha Rani daughter of Shri Ram Dhan, initiated false proceedings against him for the offences u/Sees. 494/498-A/ 406, Indian Penal Code by way of FIR No. 167/87, P.S. Kingsway Camp, Delhi complaining that the petitioner had contracted a remarriage with one Smt. Shashi Bala daughter of Shri Tola Ram during the subsistence of her marriage and also caused cruelty and harassment to her; that the charge sheet was filed on 5.6.1987 against the petitioner- accused and charge u/Secs. 494/498-A/406, Indian Penal Code was framed by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and the revision petition preferred agianst the order of framing of charge, was also dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this Court u/Sec. 482 of the Code being Crl.M.(M) 1696/93 and while dismissing the same as withdrawn on 29.4.94, the question of compliance with the mandatory, statutory provisions of Section 198 of the Code was left open to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court for raising the necessary objection in light of Section 198; that thereafter, the petitioner moved the Trial Court for dropping of the charge for offence u / Sec. 494, IPC on the contention that the complaint is not to the Court but on the police report and the consequent non-compliance of Section 198 of the Code and therefore, no cognizance could be taken by the Court hence the request for dropping of the charge which came to be rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Thereupon the petitioner moved the Sessions Court by way of Criminal Revision Petition u/Sec. 397 of the Code which also did not find favour and again this petition u/Sec. 482 of the Code.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the contention raised by the petitioner regarding non-compliance with the requirement of Sec. 198 of the Code has not been considered in the first instance by the MM and also in the criminal revision application before the Sessions Court inasmuch as the Courts below committed an error while taking cognizance of a police report u/Sec. 173 of the Code on the complaint by the wife for the offence u/Sec. 494, IPC; that the Court could not have taken cognizance of the police report for the alleged offence u/Sec. 494, Indian Penal Code since a private complaint should have been filed to the Court directly and that the charge against the petitioner ought to have been dropped for non-compliance with the requirements of Sec. 198 of the Code. As against this, it is submitted by Ms. Gupta, learned APP for the -State that this petition u/Sec. 482 of the Code is .in the nature of second revision application to circumvent the Bar contained in Sub-sec. (3) of Section 397 of the Code and that the same would not be maintainable; that the objection u/Sec. 198 of the Code has been considered and rejected by the Courts below.