Allowed

Sandeep Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Dec 2023/12501/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that proceedings arising from non-cognizable offences, where the report is deemed a complaint under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., require the case to be treated as a complaint case and remanded the matter for appropriate order.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; matter remanded to Court below to pass appropriate order on report treating it as a complaint case.

Sandeep Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:84677

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12501 of 2023 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamini Gautam,Chandra Bhooshan,Manvendra Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings of Crl. Case No.76/2021 arising out of Case Crime No.279 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Neemgaoun, District Kheri as well as order dated 29.01.2021 passed by A.C.J.M., Kheri.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offences, under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are non cognizable offence, therefore, the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer cannot proceed as a police case and the same is liable to be proceeded with as a complaint case. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Murli and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 54, Virendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (45) ACC 609 and Shakila Bano and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 636.

¶8

According to the first Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offences, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are non cognizable, therefore, the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., is attracted in this case. Section 2(d) of the Code of

¶9

Criminal Procedure provides:

¶10

"(d) "Complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this 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 a complaint and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant.

¶12

After considering the rival arguments and perusal of record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not in accordance with above referred provision of Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C. In view of above, it is wrong, illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶13

In view of above, application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) is allowed . Matter is remanded back to the Court below for passing appropriate order on the report filed by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law, in the light of observations made above, after hearing the necessary parties, except the applicants who are proposed accused.

¶14

Office is directed to communicate this order to C.J.M., concerned for necessary compliance, forthwith.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.12.2023 V. Sinha

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandreshwar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

Shakeel Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ashish Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishna Kant Shukla @ K.K Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vivek Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another