Kalaburagi bench of the Karnataka high court rules magistrate cannot take cognizance of bigamy on police report | Bengaluru News

Bengaluru: The Kalaburagi bench of the Karnataka high court held that a Magistrate cannot take cognisance of a bigamy offence under Section 494 of the IPC, a non-cognisable offence, based on a police report.Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum made the observation while quashing the charge-sheet and the resultant proceedings against Neelakanteshwar, a businessman, and his family, all residents of Yadgir taluk and district. Neelakanteshwar’s wife, Tanuja, a resident of Raichur, was the complainant.Tanuja filed a private complaint against her husband and his family members, alleging cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC and also alleging bigamy against her husband. The magistrate referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) of CrPC. Police, while filing the charge-sheet, dropped Section 498A.Challenging the proceedings, Neelakanteshwar and his family argued that the referral of the complaint under Section 156(3) of CrPC itself was legally unsustainable since the offence under Section 494 of the IPC is non-cognisable. They further argued the final report submitted by police cannot be treated as a “complaint” within the meaning of Section 198(1)(b) or Section 198(2)(b) of CrPC.After perusing the materials on record, Justice Magadum noted although the magistrate was initially right as an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, a cognisable offence, was there, the situation changed after police filed the charge-sheet only under Section 494 of the IPC, a non-cognisable offence.In the case, although the complainant was the aggrieved wife, the private complaint filed by her under Section 200 of CrPC did not contain any supporting material and was expressly intended only to seek referral of the matter to police for investigation. The Magistrate, without recording the sworn statement of the complainant as mandated under Chapter XV of CrPC, mechanically referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC, the judge added.The court said the nature of the private complaint showed she sought only a referral to police, which the magistrate was not empowered to grant for an offence exclusively triable upon a complaint. “The reference made under Section 156(3) of CrPC in respect of a non-cognisable offence falling under Chapter XX of the IPC is, therefore, without jurisdiction, illegal, and void.”A final report (charge-sheet) filed under Section 173 of CrPC cannot be elevated to the status of a “complaint” under Section 198(2) of CrPC because such equivalence is permissible only in limited contingencies expressly provided by law. Bigamy is not one such contingency. Therefore, police report cannot be treated as a complaint, nor can the magistrate take cognisance under Section 190(1)(b) of CrPC for an offence under Section 494 of IPC, the judge further noted.Justice Magadum observed the charge-sheet filed pursuant to such illegal referral was also vitiated, and the magistrate’s act of taking cognisance on such a police report for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC amounted to a clear infraction of Section 198(1) of CrPC, while quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.“It is clarified that nothing in this order shall preclude the complainant from availing remedies available to her under the Criminal Procedure Code, in accordance with law,” the judge specified in his order.