Allahabad High Court
Gyanendra Pratap Singh @ Annu Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 24 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:29986
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3424 of 2026
Gyanendra Pratap Singh @ Annu Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Harish Chandra Yadav, Ajit Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 16
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
1. Since the question of law is being decided, issuance of notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Criminal Case No.176 of 2016 "State Versus Gyanendra Pratap Singh alias Annu" arising out of Case Crime No.464 of 2014 Under Sections 498-A/494/323/504/506 I.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali Colonelganj, District-Gonda pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda as well as the impugned revisional order dated 27.6.2025 and impugned revisional order dated 3.6.2024.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR has been lodged under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Pursuant thereto, the matter proceeded, a charge-sheet was submitted, and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons against the applicant. He added that in view of the provisions of Section 198(1)(c) Cr.P.C., no court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC except upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved. However, in the present case, the learned trial court has taken cognizance on the basis of a police report, which is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that the trial court has failed to consider the aforesaid statutory bar and has erroneously taken cognizance under Section 494 IPC along with other offences. Consequently, the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to refute the aforesaid legal proposition.
6. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is evident that the FIR includes an allegation under Section 494 IPC arising out of a matrimonial dispute. The legal proposition, as embodied under Section 198(1)(c) Cr.P.C., clearly mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the IPC, including Sections 494 and 495 IPC, except upon a complaint made by an aggrieved person.
7. In the present case, cognizance has been taken on the basis of a police report, which is contrary to the aforesaid statutory mandate. Thus, the cognizance order, to the extent it relates to the offence under Section 494 IPC, stands vitiated.
8. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 09.02.2026 passed in Criminal Case No.176 of 2016 "State Versus Gyanendra Pratap Singh alias Annu" arising out of Case Crime No.464 of 2014 Under Sections 498-A/494/323/504/506 I.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali Colonelganj, District-Gonda pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda is hereby set aside.
9. The matter is remanded back to the trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions of Section 198(1)(c) of Cr.P.C.
10. The application stands allowed.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.) April 24, 2026 V. Sinha