A police report supports cognizance of Section 494 when the case also alleges Section 498A.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that she married the petitioner in 2002 and that, during their marriage, he harassed her, sold her gold ornaments, married another woman, and left for a Gulf country.

Following her complaint, police registered a case and, after investigation, filed a charge sheet under Sections 498A and 494 of the IPC.

The Magistrate took cognizance, and the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

1. Whether proceedings alleging offences under Sections 498A and 494 IPC could proceed on a police report, notwithstanding the complaint requirement for offences against marriage under Section 198 Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the allegations and charge-sheet material disclosed a basis to quash the proceedings for want of specific allegations against the petitioner.

Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. generally bars cognizance of offences under Chapter XX IPC except on a complaint by an aggrieved person, while Section 198-A permits cognizance of an offence under Section 498A IPC on a police report or a complaint by an eligible person.

Under Ushaben v. Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada, (2012) 6 SCC 353, where allegations include the cognizable offence under Section 498A alongside Section 494, cognizance may be taken on a police report.

Section 155(4) Cr.P.C. treats a case involving both cognizable and non-cognizable offences as cognizable, permitting police to investigate the case as a whole; State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu, (1996) 6 SCC 435, applies that rule.

Under Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350, quashing is not warranted where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of an offence; a trial court is not to conduct a meticulous assessment of whether they will ultimately result in conviction.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s complaint-bar argument, applying Ushaben to the allegations under Sections 498A and 494 and relying on Section 155(4) and Sharat Chandra Sahu to support investigation of the mixed-offence case.

It also found that the complaint and charge-sheet material alleged physical and mental harassment, sale of the wife’s gold, and a second marriage during the subsistence of the first.

Those allegations were sufficient to require a trial; their truth and evidentiary strength were not to be determined in a quashing petition.

The criminal petition was dismissed, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the allegations.