SATYAVATHI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, Counsel for 2nd respondent and the learned public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent.

(2.) Sri P.Veera Poddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner/A-2 would maintain the at the offences under Sections 494 and 506 of Indian penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter in short referred to as "IPC") are non-cognizable oiiences. The learned Counsel also would contend that as per Section 198(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short hereinafter referred to as "Code"), no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even as per the complaint and the charge sheet, the petitioner has been serving A-1 as a cook and servant maid only and hence the allegation and charge under Section 494 IPC are not attracted.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the contents of the First Information Report and the other relevant material and would contend that it would be appropriate to permit the parties to agitate this question at the stage of trial.