ANNIE KOSHY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under section 482, Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred as Code) praying to quash the order, dated : 4-7-1997 passed by the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad in C.C.SR. No. 2859/97 forwarding the same to the police under Section 155(2) of the Code for investigation and report and pass consequential order directing the said Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as Act).

(2.) The facts, in brief, resulting in filing of this petition are as under : On 4-7-1997, the petitioner herein presented a private complaint, through her Advocate, in the Court of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad against her father-in-law for the offence punishable under section 6 of the Act. The learned Magistrate without examining the petitioner-complainant and her witnesses, who were present in Court at that time, simply forwarded that complaint to the Station House Officer, Karkhana, P.S. for investigation under section 155(2) of the Code and report. Challenging that order of the Magistrate, this petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code.

(3.) Sri G. S. Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the contentions stating that under section 7 of the Act, the learned Magistrate has no discretion to forward the complaint to the police, but she had to take cognizance of the offence when the complainant is preferred by the person aggrieved by the offence under the Act which is a Special Act, and in forwarding the same, the learned Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in her. The learned counsel elaborates by stating that the non obstante clause in Section 7 of the Act makes it obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence as soon as it is presented before her.