Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42678 of 2019 Applicant :- Anil Kumar And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet no.Nil/2017, dated 18.02.2018 of NCR No.140 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and summoning order dated 07.05.2019 and proceedings of Case No.1005/2019, arising out of NCR No.140/2017, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Gaur, District Basti, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- Ist, Basti Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 filed a non-cognizable report on 22.12.2017 at Police Station Gaur, District Basti against the applicants on the basis of which N.C.R. No.140 of 2017, under Sections 323 and 504 has been registered. The opposite party no.2 moved an application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- Ist, District Basti under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. on 22.01.2018 with a prayer that the concerned Police Station be directed to investigate the matter. Pursuant to the order passed on the aforesaid application, the matter was investigated and the Police submitted a charge-sheet against the applicants under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C. in the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate, which was registered as Case No.1005 of 2019 against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that the offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. are non-cognizable, hence in view of Explanation to Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C., the case could not proceed as State Case and it had to proceed as a complaint case. He further submits that the concerned Magistrate has erroneously passed an order taking conizance on the charge-sheet.
It is clear from the above that all the offences punishable under Sections-323 and 504 are non-cognizable.
Explanation to Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C. runs as follows :-
"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."
In view of the said explanation, report of the Police Officer, after investigation, disclosing commission of non-cognizable offence is to be deemed to be a complaint and the Police Officer, who submitted the report has to be deemed to be a complainant. In other words, the charge sheet submitted by the Police in a non-cognizable offence shall be treated to be a complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of the complaint case shall be applicable to that case.
In the present case from the material on record, it transpires that the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer instead of being treated as a complaint case, has been taken cognizance of by the concerned Magistrate as a State Case, which is not permissible under law.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.
After having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, as well as examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants have force and are liable to be accepted.
For the aforesaid reasons, the present case be treated as a complaint case and the procedure prescribed for hearing of the complaint shall be followed by the court concerned before summoning the applicants.
With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019
Anand Sri./-