Judgment:
A. Pasayat, J.
1. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') petitioner questions legality of the order passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandapur (in short, 'S.D.J.M.') rejecting petitioner's prayer to discharge him. Accusations relate to alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short,' I.P.C). Petitioner's stand before the learned S.D.J.M. was two folds. Firstly, in the absence of a complaint as provided under Section 198 of the Code, there was no scope for taking cognizance. Secondly, the ingredients necessary to constitute offence punishable under Section 498A are absent, and in any event proper approach before the prescribed authority as stipulated under the Schedule to the Code having not been made the proceeding itself was nullity. The learned S.D.J.M. did not accept the contentions and directed continuance of the proceeding.
2. The points urged before the learned S.D.J.M. were reiterated in this Court. I shall first deal with the question about legality of the proceeding so far as Section 494, I.P.C. is concerned. At this juncture it is necessary to refer to Section 198 of the Code. The said provision forms a part of Chapter XIV dealing with conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. It relates to prosecution for offences against marriage. The provision so far as relevant for our purpose reads as follows :
'198. (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the India Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence :
Provided that
(a) and
(b)xxx xxx
(c) where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her father's or mother's brother or sister, or, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.'
The prohibition is absolute so far as any offence punishable under Chapter XX of the I.P.C. is concerned. The said Chapter deals with offences relating to marriage and Section 494 is one of the sections covered by the said Chapter. Section 198 has been amended to provide that a complaint of an offence of bigamy covered by Section 494 may be filed also by any person related to the aggrieved woman by blood, marriage or adoption after obtaining leave of the Court having jurisdiction. This section like Sections 193 and 195 to 197 regulates the competence of the Court and bars its jurisdiction in certain cases excepting in compliance with it. It prohibits cognizance except upon complaint made by the person aggrieved. Section 190(1) provides for cognizance, and complaint referred to in Section 198 is a complaint made under Sub-section 190(1)(a). The section is in the nature of an exception to the general rule that any person can set the criminal' law into motion. However, it is limited only to offences indicated in Chapter XX of I.P.C, i.e., offences relating to marriage. The expression 'complaint' is defined in Section 2(d) of the Code. Therefore, the complaint with regard to Section 198 means a complaint as defined in Section 2(d) of the Code. The expression 'person aggrieved' occurring in Sub- section (1) of Section 198 does not contemplate any fanciful or sentimental grievance, it must be such a grievance as the law can appreciate; it must be legal grievance and not a stat pro ratione valuntas reason. The stand of the petitioner so far as the offence punishable under Section 494, I.P.C. is concerned is on terra firma.
3. Coming to the second question emphasis is laid on First Schedule to the Code relating to offence covered under Section 498A, I.P.C. It is stated that the offence is cognizable under the circumstances indicated and there was non- observance of procedure. Section 498A, I.P.C. appearing in the First Schedule is covered by Chapter XX-A. Following description is given under the heading 'cognizable or non-cognizable' in the Schedule, so far as Section 498A, I.P.C. is concerned:
'Cognizable-if information relating to the commission of the offence is given to an officer in-charge of a Police Station by the person aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption or if there is no such relating, by any public servant belonging to such class or category as may be notified by the State Government in this behalf.'
4. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to Section 2(c) of the Code, dealing with cognizable offence. It reads as follows :
''cognizable offence' means an offence for which, and 'cognizable case' means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant;'
5. Mr. Dash, learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that information relating to commission of offence has to be given to the officer-in-charge of Police Station by any person related to an aggrieved woman. With reference to the First Information Report. It is submitted that women's commission forwarded a copy of grievance received by it and that was treated as First Information Report. It was submitted that the report was not even addressed to the officer-in-charge, but was addressed to the Women's Commission; and therefore, the procedure as laid down was not followed. The contention is attractive, but without substance. Law can be set into motion on information being received by the officer-in-charge of the Police Station from the person aggrieved. Emphasis is on the information being given by the aggrieved person, and not on the manner as to how it reaches the concerned officer. In a given case even information can be given by post or through an agent of a person aggrieved. The determinative factor is whether information was made by the person aggrieved and whether information was given by such person. It is a procedural aspect. Procedures are designed to facilitate justice and further its ends, and cannot be considered as a penal enactment for punishment or penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up rather than help them. Procedural safeguards are the hand-maid of justice. They are intended to serve the cause of justice and not to create unsurmountable hurdles. Unnecessary stress on it and hair splitting analysis whether it is religiously followed is not required. Substantial compliance would suffice. Procedure as defined in Wharton's Law Lexicon means the mode in which successive steps in litigation are taken law relating to procedure is the adjective law while law defining principles or constituting substance of justice principles is called the substantive law. Procedure are intended to subserve and not govern the course of justice. Merely because information was routed through the Women's Commission, it cannot be said that the grievance was not made by the person aggrieved and that the information was not given by her.
6. The residual question is whether any offence is made out under Section 498A, I.P.C. The First Information Report refers to demand of money. Offence under Section 498A relates to husband or relative of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. The Explanation to the provision defines 'cruelty'. It means any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Import of the word 'cruelty' is well-known. Similarly import of the word 'harassment' is also well-known. At the stage of cognizance Court is primarily concerned with the question whether prima facie there is any material to show about commission of any offence. At the stage of charge the Court is required to consider whether there is a case made out against the accused for which he should face trial. At the stage the Court is required to take an over-all view of the matter and not to make a throadbare analysis. Even a mere suspicion, with some material on which it is based is sufficient to frame charge. Possibility of conviction or acquittal is not a determinative factor while considering the case of charge. Therefore, I find no scope for interference at this stage so far as offence punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. is concerned. However, I express no opinion on the merits which shall be gone into at trial. It shall not be construed as if I have expressed any opinion so far as offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. is concerned.
7. In the result, the charge under Section 494, I.P.C. is set aside. To that extent the application succeeds.
The application is disposed of accordingly.