Rajit Ram Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Court No. - 87

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11505 of 2022

Applicant :- Rajit Ram Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alakshendra Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 31.12.2017 and cognizance order dated 03.01.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.633 of 2020 (State vs. Rajit Ram and others) in NCR No. 52 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Pawara, District Jaunpur.

¶7

Brief facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this application are that complainant Indramani Yadav had moved a written complaint on 12.05.2016 before SO, Pawara, Jaunpur with the allegations that on 12.05.2016 at about 05:00 pm, accused persons namely, Rajit Ram Yadav, Sunil Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Pankaj Kumar was using filthy language. When this act objected to do the same, they started beating complainant's son, his daughter-in-law and sister-in-law by stick, kick and fist due to which they have sustained injuries. On this application, NCR No.52 of 2016, under Section 323 & 504 IPC has been registered and after taking permission for investigation, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the injured witnesses and submitted charge sheet no. NIL of 2017 dated 31.12.2017 in NCR No.52 of 2016 against the applicants under Sections 323, 504 IPC. On charge-sheet, Magistrate has taken cognizance on 03.01.2022 and issued summons to the applicants.

¶8

Feeling aggrieved, this application has been moved before this Court.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that matter relates to non-cognizance offence only and in such matters cognizance by the Magistrate should not be taken. The case should be treated as a complaint case, it should not be treated as a State case. The impugned order of the court below is an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. Section 2-D Cr.P.C. lays down that :

¶10

" complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.

¶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

The scope and ambit of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been examined by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, AIR 2003 SC 2612 and observed as follows:

¶13

"The grounds on which power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings basically are (1) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused (2) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, (3) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. But this power has to be exercised in a rare case and with great circumspection".

¶14

On perusal of material brought on record, it transpires that charge sheet submitted by the IO under Sections 323 & 504 IPC only with regard to non-cognizable case. Instead of treating as complaint, cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate as State case, which is not permissible under law. Although, Magistrate has not specifically mentioned in the impugned order that the case should be proceeded under which manner State or complaint, but in absence of such specific mention on the charge sheet, it may be presumed that the case shall be proceeded as State case, which is not permissible under law.

¶15

In view of above discussion, application has substance and is liable to be allowed in part. This is a fit case in which inherent power should be exercised and there appears abuse of process of law. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in part and impugned order dated 03.01.2022 by which, cognizance was taken, is hereby quashed with a direction to proceed with the matter as complaint case. The Magistrate shall proceed with

¶16

the matter as complaint case as laid down in Explanation of Section-2(d) Cr.P.C. Rest prayer is refused.

¶17

It is made clear that in such situation, statement of the complainant under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. is not required. No need to pass separate cognizance order but learned Magistrate should specify that said charge sheet shall be proceeded like a complaint case after registering the case. Such principle is applicable in all cases relating to non-cognizance cases.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.7.2022 Priya

¶19

Digitally signed by PRIYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.07.26 16:44:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajit Ram Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajit Ram Yadav and 3 Others 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

Mohd. Ayub Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Narendra Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramashish Rajbhar @ Ashish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrakiran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yash Pal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Ram Vishesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another