Quashed

Narayan Babu Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2019A482/22663/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed criminal proceedings initiated under S. 323, 504 IPC founded on a Non-Cognizable Report (N.C.R). The court held the case could not be treated as a State case under S. 2(d) Cr.P.C. and remitted it to the Magistrate to follow complaint case procedure.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet dated 24.4.2015 in C.C. No. 10343 of 2016 quashed; matter remitted to Magistrate to pass fresh order following complaint case procedure.

Narayan Babu Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22663 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Narayan Babu Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10343 of 2016 (State Vs. Narayan Babu Gupta and another) under sections 323, 504 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali District Fatehpur pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur and the charge sheet dated 24.4.2015.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present prosecution has arisen out of NCR. It is stated that the offence as alleged are noncognizable and therefore neither the charge sheet could have been submitted by the Investigating Officer nor the learned Magistrate could have taken cognizance in view of the explanation under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.

¶8

It is further stated that the only course open to the learned Magistrate was to have treated the case as a complaint case and to have proceeded with, in accordance with law accordingly.

¶9

Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court dated 15.05.2018 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 5917 of 2006 wherein this Court has taken view that neither the charge sheet could have been submitted by the Investigating Officer nor the learned Magistrate could have taken cognizance on the same, treating it as a State case.

¶10

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that while the learned Magistrate may not have taken cognizance on the charge sheet treating it to be a State case. However, it was open to the learned Magistrate to follow the complaint case procedure.

¶11

Considering the above, no useful purpose would be in keeping the present application pending any further. The charge sheet dated 24.4.2015 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order, strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations made above.

¶12

The aforesaid exercise may be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 25.6.2019 Atul kr. sri.

Narayan Babu Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Babu Gupta and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aamir Rasadi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ritika Baranwal Vs State of U.P.and Another

Aniruddh Singh Vs State of U.P. and another

Ajay Ram @ Ram Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bechan Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another