TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows appeal, reinstates Section 494 in complaint, emphasizes police authority</h1> <h3>Ushaben Versus Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada and Ors.</h3> The appeal challenged the High Court's order quashing a complaint under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court ... - Issues involved: The appeal challenges the order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding the quashing of a complaint filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Quashing of the complaint under various sectionsThe Appellant filed a complaint against Respondents 1 to 9 under Sections 498A, 494, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court partly allowed the petition, quashing the complaint against Respondents 6 to 9 for bigamy allegations and ordered the deletion of the offense under Section 494 against Respondents 1 to 5. The Appellant appealed against this decision.Issue 2: Interpretation of relevant legal provisionsThe Court examined Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse, and Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which outlines when cognizance of offenses can be taken by a Magistrate. Additionally, Section 198 of the Code pertains to prosecution for offenses against marriage, emphasizing that no court shall take cognizance of such offenses except upon a complaint by the aggrieved person.Issue 3: Cognizance of offenses under different sectionsThe Court highlighted the importance of distinguishing offenses falling under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, such as Section 494, from those in Chapter XXA, like Section 498A. It clarified that a complaint under Section 494 must be made by the aggrieved person, while Section 498A allows cognizance based on a police report or a complaint by the aggrieved person or their relatives.Conclusion:The Court held that the High Court's reliance on a previous judgment was misplaced, as it dealt with different offenses under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code. It emphasized that the police can legally investigate complaints involving offenses under both Section 498A and Section 494. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the order to delete Section 494 from the complaint and directing the police to proceed with the investigation in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
