ORDER
Amar Bir Singh Gill, J.
1. The petitioner by way of this petition has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the Calandar as Complaint No. 105 of 5.7.1993 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sangrur and the consequential proceedings thereon.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respondent No. 3-ASI Karnail Singh, in order to harass and grab his property and to defame and torture him got recorded report No. 28 dated 9.6.1993 under Section 494, I.P.C. against the petitioner which humiliated him and without any just cause, respondent No. 3 forwarded the Calandar for an offence under Section 494, I.P.C. against the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Sangrur. Even according to Calandar, no cognizable offence was made out against the petitioner nor could the police arrest him nor he could be prosecuted. Since the allegations attracted Sections 494 and 495 of non-cognizable offence, neither the police could investigate the case nor arrest him.
Notice to the respondents was issued.
3. Since the Counsel for the petitioner has not appeared, I have heard Counsel for the State.
4. Admittedly, as mentioned in para 9 of the petition, Complaint No. 105 of 5.7.1993 was lodged by one Sinder Kaur against the present petitioner which was entered as Report No. 28, dated 9.6.1993 under Section 494, I.P.C. Sinder Kaur alleged that 10 years earlier she was married with one Surjit Singh, resident of Lehra but due to some differences, she got divorce from him. After one year of divorce, she again married to the present petitioner. However, from both the marriage, she got no issue. Now about one year back, the present petitioner has married a Bihari girl named Sito and he has turned her out of the house forcibly. On this complaint alone, respondent No. 3-ASI Karnail Singh along with his police party raided the house of the petitioner and he was arrested under Section 494, I.P.C. besides personal search was conducted and on its basis a complaint was forwarded to the Ilaqa Magistrate.
5. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be genuine one. Section 198, Cr. P.C. debars the police from taking cognizance of such an offence since it is shown to be a non-cognizable one, nor the Ilaqa Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence on police report. Section 198, Cr. P.C. empowers taking cognizance of an offence under Sections 494/495, I.P.C. by the Magistrate only upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved of the offence. Section 198(c), Cr. P.C. provides as under :
“198. Prosecution for offences against marriage-(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) – except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence :
Provided that :
(a) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
(c) Where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is the wife, 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, or with the leave of the Court by any other person relates to her by blood, marriage or adoption.”
6. Admittedly, no complaint was made before the Magistrate by the aggrieved person, at all, i.e. by Sinder Kaur respondent No. 2. The action of respondent No. 3-ASI Karnail Singh in taking cognizance of the offence and making a report to the Magistrate was without any jurisdiction. Similarly, taking of cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate on such a report was also against the provisions of Section 198, Cr. P.C.
7. In view of what has been said above, the petition is allowed and complaint forwarded by the police as well as the proceedings taken thereon by the Magistrate are quashed.