AMBE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMBE Prasad Jaiman has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. PC to quash the order of the Judicial Magistrate No. 6 Jaipur City dated 18th September, 1986 framing charge against the petitioner and some others under Section 495, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) I have heard Shri Virendra Bandhu. learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.C. Sharma, the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) THE sole contention advanced by Shri Virendra Bandhu is that Section 198 of the Cr. PC completely debars the Judicial Magistrate or any other court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 495, IPC which was an offence punishable under chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. It is clear that Section 198 of the Code lays down an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by any body whether he is an aggrieved person or not and modifies that rule by permitting only an aggrieved person to move a Magistrate in offence falling under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code. Section 198, Cr.PC is mandatory and if a Magistrate takes cognizance or holds trial and convicts an accused person in such a case, the whole trial would be void and illegal. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in G. Nam Simhan v. T V. Chokkapa reported in : 1973CriLJ52 . It is not disputed that the matter is not covered by proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That being the position of law the Judicial Magistrate No. 6 Jaipur City, Jaipur had no jurisdiction to frame a charge for the offence under Section 495, IPC against the petitioner and to hold trial against the petitioner for the said offence on a police report. The learned Public Prosecutor has stated that Smt. Sangeeta who was an aggrieved person, in as much as with her Ambe Prasad Jaiman had solemnized the subsequent marriage during the life time of his previous wife, has already filed a criminal complaint in the court of the Magistrate and that criminal complaint has been ordered to be amalgamated with the chargesheet filed by police on the First Information Report lodged by Rajkumar Gaur. It may be made clear that quashing of the impugned order framing charge against the petitioner Ambe Prasad Jaiman under Section 495, IPC would be limited to that report which has been filed by the police under Section 173, Cr.PC and it would in no way affect the further proceedings in the private complaint which has been filed by Sangeeta in the court of the Magistrate on November 18, 1983. That private complaint would proceed further in accordance with law, in relation to all the persons against whom the Magistrate had initially taken cognizance. I, therefore., allow this miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.PC and do hereby quash all the proceedings which the Judicial Magistrate has taken on and in relation to a Criminal Case No. 394 of 1983 registered on the basis of police report under Section 173, Cr.PC filed by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station, Jawhar Nagar, Jaipur after investigation on the First Information Report lodged by Rajkumar Gaur on April 27, 1983 without in any way affecting the competency of proceedings in the private criminal complaint filed in the Court of the Magistrate by Sangeeta on November 18, 1983.