Allowed

Arshad Jamal v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC5 May 2023A482/16693/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenged the charge sheet and cognizance taken for an offence under Section 188 IPC. The court held that Section 195 Cr.P.C. bars cognizance without a public servant's complaint. Finding the proceedings void ab-initio, the court quashed them.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of taking cognizance and summoning the applicant are quashed; the present petition is allowed.

Arshad Jamal Vs State of U.P and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16693 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Arshad Jamal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmaveer Singh,Saroj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Saroj Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet 29.10.2008 submitted in Case Crime No.825 of 2008 under Section 188 IPC, Police Station Madhuban, District, the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 03.01.20229 Passed by Special Judge (M.P. / M..A./Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Case No. 3083 of 2022 (State Vs. Ramkripal and others) as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned the aforesaid criminal case now pending in the Court of Special Judge (M.P. / M.L.A./Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that under the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. there is complete bar for taking cognizance for an offene under Section 188 IPC except on the complaint made by public servant.

¶9

It is further submitted that no FIR could have been registered under Section 188 IPC but in the present case not only FIR was registered for offence under Section 188 IPC but the police also filed charge sheet. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that submission of the charge sheet and taking cognizance and initiation of the criminal proceedings against the applicants for offence under Sections is against the express provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, void ab-initio.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶11

Considering the facts, circumstances and law and the scope of the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that no cognizance could have been taken on the charge-sheet

¶12

submitted by the investigating agency on the basis of the FIR lodged under section 188 IPC as no investigation could have been carried out for offence under Section 188IPC.

¶13

In view thereof the proceeding of taking cognizance and summoning the applicants for offences under Section 188 is void ab-initio and they are hereby quashed.

¶14

In view thereof the present petition is allowed. The proceedings of aforementioned criminal case are quashed.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.5.2023 YK

¶16

Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arshad Jamal v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arshad Jamal 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

Himanshu Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mahabir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Husain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aditya Awasthi Vs C.B.I

Sanjay Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another