Allowed

Priyanka Gupta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2018A482/67/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant to delete parties against whom no charge-sheet exists. It quashed the lower court's cognizance and directed the trial court to treat the charge-sheet as a complaint under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., as the offence disclosed (IPC 323) is non-cognizable.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to delete unnecessary applicants is allowed. The lower court's cognizance is set aside and direction is given to treat the charge-sheet as a complaint.

Priyanka Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 67 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Priyanka Gupta And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants has made a prayer that he may be permitted to delete the applicant Nos. 3 to 5 from the array of parties shown as applicants because charge-sheet has not been filed against them and it is by mistake that their names have been entered as applicants.

¶6

The said prayer is allowed.

¶7

Let an amendment be carried out immediately.

¶8

This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking quashing the charge-sheet dated 26.06.2017, registered as Criminal Case No.11389 of 2016 (State Vs. Priyanka Gupta and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0415 of 2016 under Section 323 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines District Aligarh pending in the court of C.J.M., Aligarh. Simultaneously it is prayed that further proceedings in the said case be stayed during pendency of this Appliction.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that initially the F.I.R. was lodged by the O.P. No.2 under Section 147, 323, 506 and 392 I.P.C. against the applicant and three others and after the investigation, the police has found that the case under Section 323 I.P.C. only is made out against the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Priyanka and Omvati, therefore, in view of the definition of 'complaint' under Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C., this case shall be deemed to be a complaint and the police officer by whom the said report was made shall be deemed to be a complainant. Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the learned court below has taken cognisance on this charge-sheet on 17.9.2016 which is against law and needs to be set aside.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Devesh Kumar Shukla , learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶11

For the sake of convenience, the provision of Section 2(d) is quoted herein below:

¶12

"(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 noncognizable 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;"

¶13

It is apparent from the above provision that after investigation in a complaint made by a person, if the police comes to the conclusion that non cognizable offence only is made out then such a report shall be treated to be a complaint.

¶14

In this case it is apparent that police after having made investigation has found that the case under Section 323 I.P.C. only is made out against the applicants, hence, this case could run only as a complaint case and not as the state case.

¶15

The cognizance of the offence taken by the court below seems erroneous and needs to be set aside.

¶16

This Application is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction that the court below shall treat this charge-sheet to be a compliant and proceed accordingly and the cognisance taken on 17.09.2016 by the court below is set aside.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.1.2018 A. Mandhani

Priyanka Gupta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Gupta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kesh Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ayazuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarun Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nishant Matlotiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another