SIMANCHAL MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (for short, the CodeT), inter alia, praying to quash the order of cognizance dated February 1,1999, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, in G.R. Case No. 1160 of 1997.

(2.) The moot point which needs determination in the present case is, as to whether in the absence of a complaint as stipulated under Section 198 of the Code, there is any scope for taking cognizance under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.). For appreciating the position of law, facts, which are very much necessary are set herein below.

(3.) On the basis of an, information lodged by Manjulata Padhi before the Officer-in-charge. Mahila Police Station. Berhampur. P.S. Case No. 57 of 1997 was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494 read with Section.34 of the I.P.C. which was subsequently converted to G. R Case No. 1160 of 1997 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur. In the F.I.R. the informant alleged that she had married the petitioner on July 6. 1992 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Though the initial married life was blissful, subsequently dissension cropped up when the wife refused to give her educational certificate for a D.I.C. loan. It is alleged that being enraged, the husband drove her out of the house. She was pregnant at that time and on July 9, 1993 she gave birth to a male child. It is further alleged that in the meanwhile the petitioner has married for the second time. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, and 406/34. I.P.C. The learned Magistrate, by order dated September 17, 1998 took cognizance in consonance with the charge-sheet and issued process for appearance of the accused. The said order was impugned by the petitioner before this Court in Cri, Misc Case No. 5519 of 1998. By order dated January 15, 1999, this Court disposed of the aforesaid application with a direction to the petitioner to renew his prayer before the learned Magistrate to reconsider and to recall the order of cognizance. On the basis of an application filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate reconsidered the matter and by order dated February 1, 1999, after a threadbare discussion of the allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as other documents held that the charges under Section 498- A as well as Section 406, IPC are not tenable in law and the order taking cognizance of the offences under the said sections is barred by limitation. The learned Magistrate recalled his earlier order of cognizance so far as offences under Sections 498-A and 406. IPC are concerned, but directed that the case shall proceed in respect of the offence under Section 494. IPC. The said order as stated above is impugned in this case.