JUDGMENT R.K. Rastogi, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of case No. 500 of 2005 ( State v. Vinay Kumar) pending in the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Jaunpur.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that a first information report was lodged by Dinesh Chandra Tiwari against accused Kashi Nath, Pappu, Vinay Kumar and Pravesh under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. on the basis of which case crime No. 41 of 2005 was registered at police station Rampur district Jaunpur. The police after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and on that charge sheet Magistrate took, cognizance and summoned the accused persons. Aggrieved with that order, present application has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicants made only one submission before me. He submitted that offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. are non-cognizable so in view of the explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. this case could not proceed as State case and it was to proceed as complaint case and the learned Magistrate erroneously passed an order for treating it as Slate case. Photostat copy of a ruling of this Court in 'Crl. Misc. Application No. 8632 of 2002 ( Sri Lalit Madhav Das and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.) decided on 4.10.2002 was also placed before me by the learned Counsel for the applicants and he relied upon the said ruling in support of his contention.
5. I have carefully gone through the said ruling. It is to be seen that it is not disputed that offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. are non-cognizable and the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. was made cognizable and non-bailable vide the Uttar Pradesh Government notification No. 777/VIII-94(2)-87 dated July 31, 1989 published in U.P. Gazette, Extra Part-4 Section (Kha) dated 2nd August, 1989. This notification issued by the Government was held to be illegal by Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Virendra Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.' 2000(45)ACC 609, and so the position is that now the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is also a non-cognizable offence.
6. The position in this way is that all the three offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. are non-cognizable.
7. Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. runs as under:
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.
8. In view of the above explanation report of the police officer after investigation regarding commission of non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be complaint and the police officer who submitted the report shall be deemed to be complainant. So, the legal position is that in a non-cognizable offence charge sheet submitted by the police disclosing non-cognizable offence only shall be treated to be complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of a complaint case shall be applicable to that case.
9. The position in this way is that according to the above explanation charge sheet submitted by the police in the present case under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. shall be treated as complaint in legal error by taking cognizance as State case and the orders passed by him are, therefore, liable to be set aside.
10. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed to this extent that the orders dated 10.10.2006 and 16.11.2006 passed by the Magistrate summoning the accused on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. treating the same as State case are set aside and Magistrate concerned is directed to proceed with the case treating it as complaint case.