Quashed

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

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024A482/26798/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash proceedings treated as a police case for an offence under Section 323 IPC. Court quashed the order of cognizance as it contravened Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. regarding non-cognizable offences and remanded matter.

What did the court decide?

The order impugned dated 04.04.2024 is quashed, and the matter remanded to pass a fresh order.

Hariom and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:175754

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26798 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hariom And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Tejb han Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 717 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Hariom and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 198 of 2023, under Section 323 IPC, P. S. Hasayan, District Hathras, wherein cognizance/summoning order dated 04.04.2024 has been passed on the basis of charge sheet as a police case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the cognizance/summoning order dated 04.04.2024 has been passed against the applicants and the magistrate took cognizance as a police case, which is against the provision of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. is non-cognizable offence and as per provision of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. the case could not be a State case and it has been proceeded as a State case, the cognizance/ summoning order is an abuse of the process of law.

¶10

Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein below:

¶11

(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.

¶12

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 complainant, and the police officer

¶13

by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;

¶14

A bare perusal of explanation added to Section 2(d) shows that this explanation speaks about cases where police has investigated a cognizable case but investigation made discloses a non-cognizable offence.

¶15

In view of what has been stated above, the present application is disposed of. The order impugned dated 04.04.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Sikandrau, District Hathras is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remanded back to the court concerned and the Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order after applying the judicial mind.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.11.2024 MAA/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nawab Alias Iqbal and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Farhan and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Bijendra Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Dwarika and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Manju and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another