Allowed

Kumari Savita and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2023A482/20419/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a cognizance order dated 17.04.2021. The court held that for non-cognizable offences, a police charge-sheet constitutes a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC, and the lower court erred in taking cognizance without adhering to this provision.

What did the court decide?

The order of cognizance dated 17.04.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Etah is set aside, and the Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order in compliance with Section 2(d) CrPC.

Kumari Savita and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:127720

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20419 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kumari Savita And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

2.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 21.09.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 17.04.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Etah as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1825 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.150 of 2020 under Sections 323 and 504 IPC, Police Station Rijor, District Etah, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Etah.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants mainly contended that an F.I.R. under Sections 323 and 504 IPC was registered and thereafter investigation was conducted and charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence without looking into the police report and against the provisions of law. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as per Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., if after investigation the police report discloses commission of noncognizable offence, it has to be treated as a complaint and investigating officer/police officer shall be deemed to be complainant and the procedure of complaint case is to be followed. In view of the provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. the filing of charge sheet and the impugned order dated 17.04.2021, taking cognizance of the offence on the police report/charge sheet and issuance of process against the applicants is vitiated in the law.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. not disputed the aforesaid facts.

¶10

It is undisputed that the F.I.R. was registered for offence under sections 323, 504 IPC and after investigation charge sheet has also been submitted under Sections 323, 504 IPC, which is a noncognizable offence, hence Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. will apply in the

¶11

present matter, which provides as follows:-

¶12

"2. Definition.-

¶13

(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.

¶14

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;"

¶15

So there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicants. The order of cognizance dated 17.04.2021 is vitiated in the eye of law and is liable to be set-aside.

¶16

Accordingly, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

¶17

The order of cognizance order dated 17.04.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Etah is set aside.

¶18

The learned Magistrate may pass fresh order in view of the provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.

¶19

Order Date :- 21.6.2023

¶20

MN/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kumari Savita and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Savita 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xyz Vs State of U.P. and Another

Farhat Jahan @ Munni Vs State of U.P.

Kamta Prasad (Corpus) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjay Paswan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Muneshwar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt Rekha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others