Supreme Court Allows State Appeal in Criminal Procedure Matter Concerning Investigation of Combined Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences. Charge Under Section 494 IPC Restored as Section 155(4) CrPC Deems Entire Case Cognizable Due to Presence of Section 498A IPC Offence, Overriding Section 198(1) CrPC Complaint Requirement.

Case Note & Summary

The litigation arose from a criminal case concerning alleged offences of bigamy and cruelty under Sections 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent No.2, the wife, submitted a written complaint to the Women's Commission alleging that her husband, respondent No.1, had contracted a second marriage punishable under Section 494 IPC and had continuously demanded money from her, causing harassment punishable under Section 498A IPC. The Women's Commission forwarded the complaint to the police station, where G.R. Case No.418 of 1993 was registered against respondent No.1. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur, who framed charges against respondent No.1 under Sections 498A and 494 IPC. Aggrieved by the framing of charges, respondent No.1 filed Criminal Misc. Case No.1169 of 1994 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Orissa High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings and charges. The High Court by judgment dated 3 May 1995 partly allowed the petition. It held that since respondent No.2 had not personally filed a complaint under Section 494 IPC, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of that offence due to Section 198(1) CrPC. Consequently, the High Court quashed the charge under Section 494 IPC but maintained the charge under Section 498A IPC. The State of Orissa challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the High Court erred in quashing the charge under Section 494 IPC on the ground of non-compliance with Section 198(1) CrPC when the case also involved a cognizable offence under Section 498A IPC. The State of Orissa argued that Section 155(4) CrPC treats the entire case as cognizable if at least one offence is cognizable, thereby permitting the police to investigate all offences, including non-cognizable ones, and to file a charge-sheet for all. The respondents relied on the High Court's reasoning, which emphasised the requirement of a complaint by the aggrieved person under Section 198(1) CrPC for offences under Chapter XX of the IPC. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme. It noted that the First Schedule to the Code classifies the offence under Section 494 IPC as non-cognizable and bailable, ordinarily requiring a complaint before a Magistrate. Section 198(1) CrPC prohibits a court from taking cognizance of offences under Chapter XX IPC except upon a complaint by the person aggrieved, with proviso (c) allowing certain relatives to complain on behalf of a wife. However, Section 155(4) CrPC provides that where a case relates to two or more offences, of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be cognizable notwithstanding that other offences are non-cognizable. The Court held that this provision creates a legal fiction and requires the police to investigate the whole case, including non-cognizable offences, once a cognizable offence is present. The provision was introduced in the 1973 Code to overcome earlier controversy about police investigation of non-cognizable offences without Magistrate's order. The Court also referred to Preveen Chandra Mody v. State of M.P., AIR 1965 SC 1185, which held that while investigating a cognizable offence, police are not debarred from investigating a non-cognizable offence arising out of the same facts and including it in the charge-sheet. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was clearly in error in quashing the charge under Section 494 IPC on the ground that the trial court could not take cognizance unless a complaint was filed personally by the wife or a near relation under Section 198(1) CrPC. The appeal was allowed; the High Court's judgment and order dated 3 May 1995 insofar as it quashed the charge under Section 494 IPC and proceedings relating thereto was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to proceed with the case and dispose of it expeditiously.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Appeal allowed; judgment and order dated 3 May 1995 of Orissa High Court insofar as it quashed charge under Section 494 IPC and proceedings relating thereto set aside; Magistrate directed to proceed with the case and dispose of it expeditiously.

Law Points