Allowed

Smt. Santo @ Santo Devi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2019A482/41284/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This applicant challenged the conduct of criminal proceedings in a non-cognizable case. The Court held that proceedings arising from an investigation report in a non-cognizable offence must be treated as a private complaint, rejecting the treatment as a State Case. The Magistrate must follow complaint procedures before summoning applicants.

What did the court decide?

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.

Smt. Santo @ Santo Devi and Anr. Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41284 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Santo @ Santo Devi And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3870 of 2018 (State Vs. Smt. Santo & Another) arising out of N.C.R. No. 211 of 2017, under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C., Police StationJagdishpura, District-Agra, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 filed a non-cognizable report on 21st May, 2017 at Police Station-Jagdishpura, District-Agra, against the applicants on the basis of which N.C.R. No. 211 of 2017 under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C. has been registered. After recording statements of opposite party no.2 and his wife, namely, Smt. Shardha, the Investigating Officer has exonerated two accused persons, namely, Ankesh and Kiran and submitted charge-sheet on 25th November, 2018 against the applicants under Section 323 and 506 I.P.C. in the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 3870 of 2018 (State Vs. Smt. Santo & Another) against the applicants.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that the offences under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C. are noncognizable, 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.

¶9

It is clear from the above that all the offences punishable under Sections-323 and 506 are non-cognizable.

¶10

Explanation to Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C. runs as hereunder:-

¶11

"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."

¶12

In view of the said explanation, report of the Police Officer, after investigation, disclosing commission of non-cognizable

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

With the aforesaid directions/observations, this application stands finally disposed of.

¶19

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 3.12.2019 Sushil/-

Smt. Santo @ Santo Devi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Santo @ Santo Devi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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 Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Vaid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omendra Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Billu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another