Allowed¶12

Siddharth Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2020A482/17223/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of chargesheet and cognizance/summoning order dated 18.02.2020; chargesheet against person not named in F.I.R.; Section 66-A Information Technology Act ultra vires per Shreya Singhal (AIR 2015 SC 1523); Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C. non-cognizable - proceeding only as complaint case, not State case; abuse of process of law; P.S. Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar; decided 26.11.2020 by Subhash Chand, J.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the cognizance/summoning order dated 18.02.2020 and of the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.104 of 2020 (State vs. Shamshad Ali and others) against the applicant Siddharth Singh. ¶12

Siddharth Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the cognizance/summoning order dated 18.02.2020 and of the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.104 of 2020 (State vs. Shamshad Ali and others) against the applicant Siddharth Singh.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.104 of 2020, including the chargesheet dated 06.12.2018 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 18.02.2020, are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +2 more

¶6

Court's answer

The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and no allegation was made against him, yet the chargesheet was submitted against him.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The offence under Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act stands declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal, and prosecution thereunder cannot proceed.

¶10

Key takeaways

Offences under Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C. are non-cognizable; proceedings thereon can be initiated only on a complaint against the accused, not as a State case.ratio¶10
The chargesheet filed by the Investigating Officer and the cognizance issued by the court concerned are against the provision of law and illegal, amounting to abuse of the process of law; the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Siddharth Singh allowed; cognizance/summoning order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the In-charge Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, taking cognizance on the chargesheet dated 06.12.2018 in Criminal Case No.104 of 2020 (State vs. Shamshad Ali and others), arising out of Case Crime No.62 of 2018 under Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C. and 66-A of the Information Technology Act, P.S. Itwa, quashed against the applicant. Held: (i) the applicant was neither named in the F.I.R. (lodged only against Rajesh Singh alias Pappu) nor was any allegation made against him, yet the chargesheet was filed against him; (ii) the offence under Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act stands declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523; (iii) offences under Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C. are non-cognizable and proceedings thereon can be initiated only on a complaint, not as a State case. The chargesheet and cognizance were held to be against the provision of law, illegal, and an abuse of the process of law.

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17223 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Siddharth Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Singh Kushwaha,Ali Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.104 of 2020 (State vs. Shamshad Ali and others) arising out of Case Crime No.62 of 2018, under Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C. and 66-A of Information of Technology Act, P.S. Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar on the basis of chargesheet dated 06.12.2018 including the cognizance/summoning order dated 18.02.2020 passed by In-charge Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R.. The F.I.R. has been lodged only against Rajesh Singh alias Pappu. He has been exonerated and chargesheet has been filed against the applicant, which is nothing but it is total harassment of the applicant. Provision of Section 66-A of the Information of Technology Act has been declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2015 SC 1523 , therefore, chargesheet as well as cognizance orders are totally illegal. So far as the offence under Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C. is concerned, both are non-cognizable offence. The applicant cannot be prosecuted in view of the provision of Section 2 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code as the case cannot be proceeded as State case but can be proceeded as complaint case.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant.

¶9

The F.I.R. of case crime no.62 of 2018 is Annexure no.1 of the affidavit which has been registered against accused Rajesh Singh alias Pappu, under Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C. and 66-A of Information of Technology Act. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. nor any allegation has been made against the applicant. The chargesheet in the aforesaid case crime has been submitted against the applicant. The certified copy of the chargesheet has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit. On the chargesheet cognizance was taken by the court concerned vide order dated 18.02.2020.

¶10

The offences under Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C. are non-cognizable offence and under these offences proceedings can be initiated on the complaint against the accused not as State Case. So far as the offence under Section 66-A of Information of Technology Act is concerned, same has been declared as ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal (supra).

¶11

As such the chargesheet against the applicant filed by I.O. and cognizance issued by the court concerned is against the provision of law and illegal. It is nothing but abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed.

¶12

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed and impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 18.02.2020 taken cognizance on the chargesheet in Criminal Case No.104 of 2020 (State vs. Shamshad Ali and others) arising out of Case Crime No.62 of 2018, under Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C. and 66-A of Information of Technology Act, P.S. Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar is hereby quashed against the applicant.

¶13

Order Date :- 26.11.2020

¶14

Asha

Siddharth Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anek Pal Vs State of U.P.

Ajay and Another Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Meer Mohammad and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhote Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manveer @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another