1. Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 11.04.2023 and cognizance order dated 19.03.2024, of Case No. 8777 of 2024 (State vs. Lokesh and others), arising out of case crime no. 544 of 2022, under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 494 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. - T.P. Nagar, District -Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Meerut.

4. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. Applicant no.1 is husband and applicant no.2 and 3 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of informant/opposite party no.2 and the allegations of dowry demand and harassment of informant are wholly false. Only general allegations of dowry demand and harassment of informant have been levelled. The first information report was registered under sections - 498-A, 323, 377, 504, 506 and 3/4 D.P. Act but during investigation, no offence under section - 377 I.P.C. has been found.

5. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted against applicants for offence under Section - 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and section 3/4 D.P. Act but cognizance for an offence under Section - 494 I.P.C. has also been, whereas cognizance for offence under Section – 494 I.P.C. can only be taken on the complaint of aggrieved party, as prescribed under Section - 198 Cr.P.C. In this connection, learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon case of Ravindra Singh vs State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home and Another (Application 482 No. 9012 of 2022), decided on 11.06.2024. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that no case is made out against applicants.

6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations levelled in the first information report and material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against them. Regarding offence under Section - 494 I.P.C, learned counsel for informant submitted that as offence under Section - 498-A I.P.C. is a cognizable offence and charge sheet has been submitted against applicants under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and section 3/4 D.P. Act and thus, the whole case has to be treated as a cognizable offence for the purpose of investigation. It was submitted that in case charge sheet is filed for offence under Section - 494 I.P.C. along with some cognizable offence, the trial court can take cognizance for such offence. In this connection, learned counsel for the informant has placed reliance upon case of Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs State of U.P. and Another (case 482 No. 2796/2021) decided on 08. 09.22021(Luknow Bench).

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

8. So far offences under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are concerned, in the first information report, there are clear allegations that the informant/opposite party no.2 was harassed by the accused persons on account of dowry. They used to demand a fortuner car and Rs. 50 lakhs from informant. It was further alleged that on 29.10.2021, accused persons have turned the informant out from matrimonial home and that she was abused, threatened and assaulted. In view of allegations levelled in the first information report and material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no offence under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. is made out.

9. However, so far the offence under Section - 494 I.P.C. is concerned, it is clear that section 198 Cr.P.C. mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter-XX of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The offence under section 494 IPC falls in chapter XX of IPC. In case of Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has referred a case of Hon'ble Apex Court pronounced in Criminal Appeal No. 1428 of 2011 (Subhash Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradhesh and Others) and held as under:

“Hence, in view of the settled position of law, the magistrate in this case has committed no illegality while taking cognizance as the charge sheet discloses the commission of more than two offences out of which at least one is cognizable, hence, the case shall be treated to be a cognizable case notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.

In view of the above, it cannot be said that there is any illegality committed by the leaned Magistrate while taking cognizance. The petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.’’

10. In case of Iftekhar Ahmad And Another Vs State Of U.P. And Anr 2019:AHC:41391 the Co-ordinate Bench of this court held as under:

“9. Thus it is clear that cognizance of offence U/s 494 IPC can be taken only on the complaint filed by the aggrieved person referred U/s 198(1) and (2) of the Code who may be husband or wife and if wife is unable to file complaint, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her father's or mother's, brother or sister, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her blood, marriage or abduction. It is also clear from Section 2 (d) of the Code that police report cannot be treated as complaint.

10. In the instant case, F.I.R. was filed by the uncle of the applicant no. 2 (respondent no. 2) and the cognizance has been taken on police report submitted by the Investigating Officer. Neither Investigating Officer not respondent no. 2 Some Dutt Sharma, uncle of the applicant no. 2 can be termed as aggrieved person in view of provision of Section 198 of the Code. Further they also cannot be treated as complainant because in this case, no statement as required under Section 200 or 202 of the Code has been recorded by the concerned Magistrate.

11. It is settled principle of criminal law that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, provide efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party the criminal proceedings must be instituted and continued according to the provision of the Code or concerned Act and criminal proceedings instituted or continued in violation of the provision of Code or concerned Act cannot be continued.’’

11. It is apparent from the case of Iftekhar (supra) that cognizance for offence under section 494 IPC can only be taken on a complaint made by aggrieved party. The reliance placed by the counsel of informant on case of Subhash Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradhesh (supra) is wholly misplaced. The said case pertains to State of Andhra Pradesh and it appears from said judgment that in State of Andhra Pradesh section 494 IPC has been made cognizable for that State by way of local amendment of State of Andhra Pradesh. In state of Uttar Pradesh there is no such amendment. Hence, said case can not be applied in the instant matter. In Ravindra Singh (supra), this Court has again reiterated that cognizance for offence under section 494 IPC can only be taken on a complaint made by aggrieved party. The Court held:

‘‘It is evident that there is no concrete evidence of the alleged second marriage, and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 494 I.P.C. lack merit and are an abuse of the legal process and as per Section 198 Cr. P.C., First Information Report cannot be lodged for the offence of bigamy under Section 494 I.P.C. and for the alleged offence only complaint case can be filed by aggrieved person, which has not been done by the opposite party No.2 in the present case.

Hence it is clear that the Magistrate did not apply his mind before taking cognizance. Hence the cognizance is bad in eye of law and resultantly it is not sustainable.’’

12. A Division Bench of This Court in case of Vikarant Sharma And Ors Vs State Of U.P. & Ors 2016:AHC:18599-DB held that Section 494 I.P.C. deals with substantive offence of Marrying again during life of husband or wife, whereas the procedure for redressal of grievance is provided under section 198 Cr.P.C. Section 198 Cr.P.C. Sub clause ( 1 ) clearly provided no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Therefore, it is clear from Section 198 Cr.P.C. that a bar is imposed on the Court to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. The cognizance of for offence under section 494 IPC can only be taken on a complaint made by aggrieved party or any of her relatives mentioned in clause (c) of the proviso, or by any other person with the leave of the Court. It does not contemplate taking cognizance of the case on a police report/charge-sheet filed by the Police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In the instant matter, neither charge sheet has been submitted for offence under Section – 494 I.P.C. nor any complaint has been filed in terms of Section – 198 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section – 494 I.P.C. without any complaint. Hence, the cognizance and summoning of the applicant for offence under section 494 I.P.C. is bad in law and thus, liable to be quashed.

13. In view of aforesaid the cognizance and summoning of the applicants for offence under section 494 IPC is quashed. The impugned cognizance / summoning order dated 19.03.2024 stand altered this extent. The case against the applicants for offences under section 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and section ¾ D.P. Act would proceed in accordance with law.

14. Application under section - 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms.