JUDGMENT
S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of FIR No. 15 dated 18-2-1989 (Annexure P/1) registered at Police Station Ghagga Distt. Patiala under Sections 406 or 498A, 494 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As per allegations in the impugned first information report lodged by the father of Kanwaljit Kaur first wife who was married to Harmeet Singh on 9-2-1988 golden jewellery costly clothes and other furniture etc. were entrusted to Harmeet Singh and the complainant later on constructed a house for her daughter at Panchkula; that Harmeet Singh obtained Rs. 20,000/- for the purchase of car from his father-in-law; that he developed illicit relations with Paramjit Kaur, present petitioner. Both of them maltreated Kanwaljit Kaur and turned her out of the house after giving her beating; that the house at Panchkula was also sold and the son-in-law of the complainant retained the sale proceeds. It was also alleged that Paramjit Kaur has been living with Harmeet Singh as his wife.
3. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.
4. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that as far as offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the police could not take cognizance and only a Magistrate could take cognizance on the complaint filed by the aggrieved party.
5. Mr. B.S. Bindra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 stated at the bar that a complaint under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code has already been filed against the present petitioner as well as Harmeet Singh, in respect of second marriage which has since been clubbed with the police case. Thus, there would be no legal bar for the trial Court to proceed against the present petitioner under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint alone. There is considerable merit in this contention.
6. As far as the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that no offence punishable under Sections 406 or 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner is made out, the same must prevail as prima facie there is no allegation, or, material either concerning entrustment of the jewellery or any part of the Stridhan property of Kanwaljit Kaur to the present petitioner; nor the present petitioner can be considered as a relation of the husband of Kanwaljit Kaur within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The second marriage of Harmeet Singh with the present petitioner even if proved, can by no stretch of imagination be considered to be a legal or valid marriage. As such the petitioner cannot be considered to be relation of the husband of Kanwaljit Kaur within the meaning, of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Besides there are no specific allegations that Kanwaljit Kaur or her parents entrusted any part of her Stridhan property to the present petitioner either at the time of first marriage, or, at any subsequent stage. In view of the facts and circumstances referred to above, no case under Section 498A or under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out prima facie against the present petitioner.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned first information report in respect of commission of offence under Sections 406 or 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner alone are directed to be quashed. However, the trial Court would proceed according to law and take appropriate action against the present petitioner, as far as offences under Sections 494 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned. The trial Court would also proceed according to law against the other co-accused and dispose of this case expeditiously.
8. This petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein for the disposal of this petition shall in any manner be construed to effect the rights of the parties on merits.