Allowed

Manik Chandra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2020A482/26/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct that proceedings for offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC be treated as a complaint case. The Court held that since these offences are non-cognizable, the police report is deemed a complaint and the Magistrate erred in treating it as a State Case.

What did the court decide?

The present case be treated as a complaint case and the procedure prescribed for hearing of complaint shall be followed by the court concerned before summoning the applicants.

Manik Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Manik Chandra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Ojha,Sanjeev Kumar Asthana

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

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. 903 of 2019, arising out of N.C.R. No. 127 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504 IPC, Police Station-Zigna, District-Mirzapur, which is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,Mirzapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 filed a non-cognizable report on 19.06.2018 at Police Staiton-Zigna, District-Mirzapur against the applicants on the basis of which Case Crime No. 903 of 2019, under Sections 323 and 504 IPC, Police Station-Zigna, District-Mirzapur has been registered. After investigation, the Police submitted a chargesheet against the applicants under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C. before the concerned court below, which was registered as Case No. 903 of 2019, under Sections 323 and 504 IPC against the applicants.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that the offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. are non-cognizable, 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 cognizance on the charge-sheet.

¶10

It is clear from the above that all the offences punishable under Sections-323 and 504 are non-cognizable.

¶11

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

¶12

"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

¶13

police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant."

¶14

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 the complaint case shall be applicable to that case.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 6.1.2020 JK Yadav

Manik Chandra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Chandra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anand Kumar and 02 Others Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Siyaram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Ali and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjeet Kumar Alias Raj Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another