Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. This petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings in P.C. No. 38/02 on the file of C J M Bellary. The petitioners are the accused. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr .C alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 494, 494A and 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr P.C. and after registration of the case in Crime No. 191/02 the accused were arrested . The said proceedings are challenged as illegal and seek quashing of the same.
2. The facts reveal that except the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC rest of the offences are cognizable and could be investigated by the Police for launching the prosecution. The provisions of Section 198 of Cr P.C. mandates that the Court shall not take cognizance of offences relating to Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint by the aggrieved persons or the relatives with the leave of the Court under special envisaged circumstances. Section 494 IPC is one of the offences contemplated under Section 200 of Cr P.C. The word 'Complaint' is defined under Section 2(d) to mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. In that view, an offence under Section 494 IPC has to be prosecuted by the private complainant by following the procedure under Section 200 Cr P.C. and the provisions of the Code do not admit registration of crime and investigation of such crime by the Police.
3. The other offences namely punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act could be investigated by the Police for launching a prosecution but in view of the allegation of commission of an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC, the Police will not have jurisdiction to investigate the crime in question and the prosecution shall be only by way of private complaint.
4. The narration of the facts of the prosecution discloses that the offence punishable under Section 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the offence under Section 494 and 494A IPC form part of one and the same crime transaction. It is well settled proposition of law in BASAPPA BASAVANTAPPA SUREBAN AND ORS vs NINGANAGOUDA DYAVANAGOUDA PATIL, 1977(2) KLJ 370 and in the STATE OF KARNATAKA vs HEMA REDDY AND ANOTHER, 1981 SC 1417 that whenever a transaction of crime involves multiple offences and some of them could be registered and investigated by the Police under the general law, and some of them require special procedure, in such a situation, it is impermissible to disjunction the offences requiring special procedure from the other offences governed by general law for launching a prosecution. It is mandatory that all offences which forms part of one and the same crime transaction have to be jointly prosecuted by necessarily following the special procedure.
5. The provisions of Section 198 are exception to the general rule that any one can set the criminal law in motion. The provision of Section 198 debars the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance unless a special procedure envisaged under Section 198 is complied. In one sense, the hiatus placed on the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance under Section 198 Cr P.C. may appear inequitable amounting to hostile discrimination between one set of victims of matrimonial crimes as against the victims of the other crimes who have the benefit of police assistance in investigating the crime and in launching the prosecution. Majority of the offences are considered as crime against society. The State takes up the responsibility of investigating the crimes and bringing the offenders to justice. The victims have a minimal and a marginal role in conduct of the prosecution when the police investigate the case and launch the prosecution. This policy is based on a sound principle of State responsibility to maintain law and order, to treat all the crimes committed against an individual as an offence against the State at its cost and labour would investigate the crimes and launch the prosecution, with a view to curb unlawful and violent action of retaliation and retribution by the victim. The crime investigation is a tough job demands high professional skills and techniques to investigate and prove the crime before a Court of law. Besides it requires enormous expenditure.
6. The majority of the crimes is general are investigated and prosecuted by the police. The benefit of investigation by the State Agency is denied to the victims of matrimonial crimes under the provisions of Section 198 Cr P.C. The discrimination in a sense may appear harsh and hostile. In matrimonial crimes normally the women and children are the victims who directly need the assistance of State Agencies are denied of the benefit on account of the special procedure but in other view, the legislature in its wisdom does not invest the jurisdiction in the Police to register and investigate the crimes relating to matrimonial offences and does not permit police as a caution to avoid the abuse of process of law and it would likely to result in irreparable damage to social harmony and family welfare. In a difficult situation like this the Courts should strike a balance to acknowledge the practical needs without offending the legislative provisions. In private complaint when Court finds that the complainant is handicapped to place the necessary evidence and if the facts warrant a thorough and a detailed investigation the Magistrate should refer the matter to police for investigation under Section 202 Cr P.C. for submission of a report. In the Course of investigation under Section 202 Cr P.C. the Police would invariably collect necessary evidence and identify the persons who could be witnesses and submit all the material in the form of a report. The complaint can make use of the report for effective prosecution of the complaint. In this way, the disadvantages and inequities suffered by the victims under provisions of Section 198 to a great extent gets remedied.
7. In that view of the matter the petition is allowed. The order of the Trial Court in referring the matter to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr P.C. is set aside. The case is remitted to Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in particular to take note of the observations made regarding the need of investigation under Section 202 Cr. P.C.