KHURSHEED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Balwada counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.N. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that non-petitioner No.2, Hakim Ali pled a criminal complaint under Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal code against the petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar on April 23, 1988. The Complaint was forwarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar under Sec. 156(3). Cr. P.C. by his order of the, same date to the Police Station, Kotwali, Sikar. The police whereupon registered a case under Sec. 498-A, I.P.C. and after Ilivestigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar for offence under Sec. 498-A read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. On this report of the police, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took I cognizance of the offence under the said section on August 20, 1988 the directed issue of processes against the petitioners. This taking of cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar for offence under Sec. 498-A read with Sec. 34, I.P.C is challenged by the petitioners in this petition.

(3.) The sole contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the First Schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence under Sec. 498-A is made cognizable only if an information relating to the commission of the offence is given to an officer in charge of a police station by the person aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption or if there is no such relative, by any public servant. It was contended that in the present case, Hakim Ali, non-petition No.2 who was father of the girl who was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners had not made a report of the commission of the offence to an officer-in-charge of a Police Station and, therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate could not take cognizance against the petitioners for the said offence.