Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada and 8 Others vs Ushaben

Akil Kureshi, J.—Rule. Learned APP Mrs. C.M. Shah waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 and learned advocate Shri Dholakia waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that he does not press this petition qua petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 in so far as complaint pertains to offence punishable under sections 498A, 506(2) read with section 114 of the IPC. He, however, press this petition for all the petitioners including petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 in so far as offence alleged u/s 494 of the IP Code is concerned. He contended that the police could not have taken cognizance of the allegations in view of the fact that no complaint for offence u/s 494 of IPC was filed by an aggrieved person and cognizance can be taken only upon a complaint filed by an aggrieved person. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Babubhai Madhavlal Patel and Another Vs. State of Gujarat, in support of the said contention.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents.

In so far as allegations for offence u/s 494 of IPC is concerned, it is an admitted position that no complaint has been made by the wife before the Magistrate. In view of the decision in the case of Babubhai Madhavlal (supra), no cognizance could, therefore, have been taken by the police. In so far as offence u/s 494 of IPC is concerned, the same is therefore deleted from the complaint.

In that view of the matter, complaint qua petitioners Nos. 6 to 9, against whom only allegation of bigamy is made, is quashed. So far as rest of the petitioners are concerned, though offence u/s 494 is deleted, for rest of alleged offences, investigation shall be carried out further. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the above extent only.