Quashed

Sadaruddin and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2023A482/39765/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court held that offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC are non-cognizable. Quashing the lower court's order that treated the charge-sheet as a State case, the court remanded the matter to follow the procedure for complaint cases under Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of cognizance dated 26.11.2022 is quashed with direction to the lower court to treat the charge-sheet as a complaint and follow the prescribed procedure before summoning.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:223781

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39765 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sadaruddin And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet dated 8.7.2022 and summoning order dated 26.11.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.14, Azamgarh as well as entire proceedings of the Case No.NIL (State v. Sadaruddin and others), arising out of Case Crime/NCR No.101 of 2021, under sections 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Tarwan, District Azamgarh, pending before Fast Track Court (Senior Division), Azamgarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offences under Sections 323, 504 IPC are non-cognizable. Hence, in view of Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., the case could not proceed as State Case, and it had to proceed as a complaint case. He further submits that the concerned Magistrate has erroneously passed an order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet.

¶9

It is clear from the above that the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 IPC are non-cognizable.

¶10

Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:

¶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 complainant."

¶12

In view of the said explanation, report of the Police Officer, after investigation, disclosing commission of non-cognizable offence is to be deemed to be a complaint and the Police Officer,

¶13

who submitted the report has deemed to be a complainant. In other words, the charge-sheet submitted by the Police in a noncognizable offence shall be treated to be a complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of the complaint case shall be applicable to that case.

¶14

In the present case from the material on record, it transpires that after submission of the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer, the concerned Magistrate instead of treating it a complaint case has treated it a State case and has taken cognizance, which is not permissible under law.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid legal submission advanced on behalf of the applicants.

¶16

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the material on record as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants have force and are liable to be accepted.

¶17

For the aforesaid reasons, impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 26.11.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.14, Azamgarh is quashed. The matter is remanded back with a direction to the concerned court below to pass fresh order treating the charge-sheet dated 8.7.2022 as a complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of the complaint case shall be followed by the court concerned before summoning the applicants.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed off.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.11.2023 Anil K. Sharma

¶20

[Vinod Diwakar, J.]

¶21

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

Sadaruddin and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadaruddin 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

Ram Charan Pratap Alias Ram Charan Harijan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Chandra Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Geeta Shakya and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yashpal Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Mahmoor @ Mohd. Mehmood Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amardeep @ Chhotey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another