SIDDIQUE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a police officer entitled to investigate an offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code when the complaint is filed by an enumerated person before the Magistrate and the Magistrate in turn makes a reference under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to him? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the question is answered in the decision reported in Prasad v. Circle Inspector of Police, 1998 (2) KLT 442, the same requires reconsideration.

(2.) The fact scenario is simple. A wife complained to the learned Magistrate that her husband is guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police under Sec. 156 (3) of the Code. The police officer took up investigation and after completion of the investigation filed a charge-sheet before the Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognizance of the crime on the basis of the police report filed by the police official. The petitioner/ accused now wants the entire proceedings to be quashed invoking the powers of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code.

(3.) Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as per column 4 in the first Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure is cognizable only if information relating to the commission of the offence is given to an officer in-charge of the police station by one of the enumerated persons. It would remain non-cognizable if any one other than an enumerated person furnishes the information to the police officer. In this case the victim wi fe is the complainant and she is one of the enumerated persons. The crux of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in that the wife has not given information to the officer in charge of the police station but she has given the complaint only to the Magistrate.