Partly allowed

Smt. Hemlata and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023A482/1983/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Allahabad High Court quashed the cognizance order under Sections 323 and 504 IPC in a complaint case, directing that the proceedings be treated as a complaint case pursuant to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the cognizance order dated 06.09.2022 and directed that the case would be proceeded like a complaint case.

Smt. Hemlata and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1983 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Hemlata And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rewti Raman Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including charge sheet dated 15.03.2022 cognizance order dated 06.09.2022 under sections 323, 504 IPC, Police station-Narsena, District-Bulanshahr arising out of N.C.R No.37 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Village Court, Syana, District-Bulandshahr.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicants were summoned under sections 323, 504 IPC and the said charge sheet is covered under section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads thus :-

¶8

Section 2(d) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

¶9

(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. 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 complainant;

¶10

The present case should be treated as a complaint case and the Investigating Officer of the case shall treat it as a complaint case. In order to buttress his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Anoop Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P. and another in Application U/S 482 No.5917 of 2006 decided on 15.05.2018. The next contention is that applying the ratio of the aforesaid case, the said proceeding shall be treated as complaint case keeping in view the explanation of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:-

¶11

"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."

¶12

In addition to this, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja,

¶13

reported in AIR 2003 SC 2612 in which, Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed that :-

¶14

"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".

¶15

Thus, taking into account the totality of circumstances, the present application stands disposed of in part. and the cognizance order dated 06.09.2022 is hereby quashed and it is directed that the case would be proceeded like a complaint case.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the present applications stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 Sumit S

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Hemlata and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Hemlata and 2 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaiveer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Vivek @ Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anjana Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another