Single Judge disposed of a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of cognizance and summoning orders. The court held that a charge-sheet involving only non-cognizable offences should be treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., negating the need to quash the proceedings or the order of cognizance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 633 of 2020
Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ambuj Pandey,Avanish Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of impugned charge-sheet no. Nil of 2019 dated 09.07.2019 in Criminal Case No. CMR. UPJP040270912019 (State of U.P. vs. Pawan Kumar Pandey and others), arising out of N.C.R. No. 03 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C., Police StationChandawak, District- Jaunpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5th, Jaunpur as well as impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 03.09.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that as the charge-sheet has been submitted for non-cognizance offences (Sections 323/504 IPC), therefore, it shall be deemed to be complaint under Explanation to Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C . Hence, the order taking cognizance as well as summoning order, as a State case, is not a correct procedure and, therefore, the order of cognizance and summoning order is liable to be quashed.
Initially, the case is registered as NCR under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and after obtaining permission from the court matter was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. Endorsement on the said charge-sheet is of cognizance taken and registered the case. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that it is a case of non-cognizable offences as defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. Explanation to Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure , which reads as follows:-
"Explanation-- A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint, and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complaint."
Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid Explanation which has been
interpreted in a Single Judge decision of this Court reported in 2007(3) JIC 654 (All) ;2007 (9) ADJ 478 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another , it has been held that when the charge sheet is only of non-cognizable offences, in view of the aforesaid provision, the charge sheet should be treated as a complaint.
Except the endorsement on the charge-sheet, no certified copy of order-sheet has been filed by the applicants and it cannot be considered that in what manner the trial judge is proceeding in the case. Considering the provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the present case is to be treated as complaint case. It is also admitted that this is a cross case for the same incident in which F.I.R. has also been lodged by applicant no.1 against opposite party no.2. In the case lodged by applicant no.1, charge-sheet has already been filed and cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. There is no reason to quash the impugned charge-sheet or the proceedings, on the ground that the trial court has taken cognizance in the matter, considering the provisions of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.
In view of above, in the present matter, investigation was undertaken for non-cognizance offence and charge-sheet filed under non-cognizance offences only, therefore, charge-sheet should be treated as a complaint. Therefore, the order impugned i.e. order of taking cognizance dated 03.09.2019 cannot be said to be against the provisions of law and the learned trial court shall proceed the case as a complaint case under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Under the observations made herein-above, the present application stands disposed of .
Order Date :- 29.9.2021 Vikas
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order of cognizance and summoning is liable to be quashed when the charge-sheet relates only to non-cognizable offences treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.
Whether the trial court can proceed with the case as a complaint case under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. instead of taking cognizance in a State case involving Sections 323, 504 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶12
2007(3) JIC 654 (All) ;2007 (9) ADJ 478
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Pawan Kumar Pandey
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
