Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2301 of 2021 Applicant :- Ravindra Nath Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav,Jeetendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naveen Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by applicants with a prayer for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 26.11.2020 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No.1192 of 2012 (State Vs. Ravindra Nath Yadav and others), arising out of NCR No.
68 of 2003, under Sections 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Rohnia, District Varanasi, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on the basis of the N.C.R. lodged by the opposite party no. 2 at P.S. Rohnia, District Varanasi registered as N.C.R. No. 68 of 2003, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. However after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted by the Investigation Officer under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. on the basis of which case no. 1192 of 2012, under sections 323, 504 was registered against the applicants and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforementioned offences against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the offence under Sections 323, 504 I. P. C. is non-cognizable, hence in view of the Explanation to Section 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case could not proceed as State Case and it has to proceed as a complaint case. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate has erroneously registered the charge-sheet as a State case and taken cognizance.
It is not disputed that the offence under Sections 323, 504 I. P.
C. is non-cognizable.
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."
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 complaint case shall be applicable to that case."
In the present case from the material brought on record it transpires that the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer instead of being treated as a complaint, has been treated as a State Case by the concerned Magistrate, which is not permissible under law.
Learned A. G. A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants.
After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am of the view that the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants have force and are liable to be accepted.
For the aforesaid reasons, the present application is allowed in part. It is made clear that the case shall be treated to be a complaint case and the procedure prescribed for hearing of the complaint shall be followed by the court concerned before summoning the applicants by which the magistrate has taken cognizance is quashed.
Order Date :- 26.10.2021 Mini