Allahabad High Court
Anurag Yadav And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 10 February, 2020
Author: Ajit Singh
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 AFR Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5575 of 2020 Applicant :- Anurag Yadav And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by applicants with a prayer for quashing the chargesheet dated 25.01.2019 and the entire proceedings of Case No.2169 of 2019, arising out of NCR No. 0140 of 2018, under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C., P.S. Sipri Bazaar, district-Jhansi, pending in the court of A.C.J.M, Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in NCR No.0140 of 2018, under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C., P.S. Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, in which upon investigation charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 323 and 504 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-sheet6 filed before the Magistrate is to be treated as complainant and so the order of Magistrate taking cognizance dated 25.01.2019 is liable to be quashed.
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.
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."
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that it may not be disputed that offences under Sections 323 & 504 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.
In view of the discussions made above, this Court came to the conclusion that impugned order of cognizance and summoning order dated 25.01.2019 upon charge-sheet in a case arising out of NCR in respect of bailable and non-cognizable offences is wrong and incorrect and is liable to be quashed.
The application is allowed accordingly and the impugned order dated 25.01.2019 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) Cr.P.C.
Let a copy of this order be sent to court below for proceeding with the case in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 10.2.2020 R./