RAXABEHN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants-accused in M. Case No. 40/91 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No. 3 at Vadodara have filed this petition to quash and set aside the order of enquiry dated 11-4-1991 directed by him under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Code for short). The order or enquiry is challenged on the ground that the Learned Magistrate ought not to have been taken the cognizance under Section 494 of the Code as the complainant is not the husband of accused No. 1 in the complaint and offence under Section 406 and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (I. P. C. for short) cannot go together as in the one there is an element of wilful entrustment while in the other there is an element of purposeful deprivation of the property.

(2.) Few facts to appreciate these contentions of challenge are as under:

(3.) Section 198(1) of the Code provides that 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. The relevant proviso for our purpose in (c) which reads as under: