Allahabad High Court
Arun Singh @ Kartik Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 November, 2023
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:208921 Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39111 of 2023 Applicant :- Arun Singh @ Kartik Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.V. Pandey,Amit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by applicant with a prayer for quashing the charge sheet dated 30.12.2020 and cognizance order dated 04.02.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1589 of 2021 (State Vs. Arun Singh @ Kartik Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 0154 of 2020, under Sections 504, 507 I.P.C., Police Station Anpara, District Sonbhadra, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 0154 of 2020, under Sections 504, 507 I.P.C., Police Station Anpara, District Sonbhadra, in which, upon investigation charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 504, 507 I.P.C. and both the offences are bailable and non-cognizable as per 1st Schedule of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the provisions of Explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., the charge-sheet filed before the Magistrate is to be treated as a complaint and so the order of Magistrate taking cognizance dated 04.02.2021 is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. though did not dispute the legal position provided in Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. but contended that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of criminal case is malafide and misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-
"Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Definitions.--In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(d) "complaint" means 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.
Explanation.- A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non- cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant."
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that it may not be disputed that offences under Sections 504, 507 I.P.C. are bailable and non-cognizable and so the provisions of explanation to Section 2(d) are applicable to the case. The Magistrate has taken cognizance without considering the provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. and its explanation clause. Undoubtedly in view of the provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate was required to adopt the procedure of a complaint case as provided.
7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court came to the conclusion that impugned order of taking cognizance dated 04.02.2021 upon charge-sheet in a case arising out of Case Crime No. 0154 of 2020 in respect of bailable and non-cognizable offences is wrong and incorrect and is liable to be quashed.
8. This application under Section 482 CrPC is partly allowed and the impugned cognizance order dated 04.02.2021 is quashed with a direction to learned Magistrate for passing appropriate order in accordance with law as well as provisions of explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to court below for proceeding with the case in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Nadim