Partly allowed

Smt Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024A482/6892/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the order taking cognizance is set aside because the charge sheet was submitted in a non-cognizable offence, which under Explanation 2(d) Cr.P.C. is deemed a complaint. The matter is now treated as a complaint case under Chapter XV Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Order of taking cognizance is set aside; Magistrate may proceed as a complaint case under Chapter XV Cr.P.C.

Smt Sushila Devi vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114037

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6892 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Sushila Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shahabuddin,Vidya Shankar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, and learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Smt. Sushila Devi with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 568 of 2022 arising out of N.C.R. No. 151 of 2021 (State vs. Sushila Devi), under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Jigana, District Mirzapur, Charge sheet dated 11.05.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 22.09.2022, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Mirzapur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that charged Sections are bailable Sections and the learned Magistrate may pass an order taking cognizance if he so desires by proceeding under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further argued that the order impugned has been challenged and reliance has been placed to explanation 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is argued that no permission was taken under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. and charge sheet has been submitted in non cognizable offence. Learned Counsel has relied upon a Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (64) ACC 296 M/s Eicher Tractor Ltd. and others Vs. Harihar Singh and another as well as another reported Judgement of this Court reported in 2008 (1) JIC 220 (All) Awdesh Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in support of his contention.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has stated that no useful purpose would be served in issuing notice to the opposite party no. 2 as is will only delay the proceedings of the present case.

¶11

The order taking cognizance has been passed and it is argued that charge sheet has been submitted under the charged sections which are non cognizable offence. Reliance has been place on Explanation to Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:-

¶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 complaint, and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complaint."

¶13

Therefore, on the basis of Explanation which has been interpreted in a Single Judge decision of this Court reported in 2007 (3) JIC 654 (All); 2007 (9) ADJ 478 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another, it has been held that when the charge sheet is only of non cognizable offences, in view of the aforesaid provision, the charge sheet should be treated as a complaint. The argument is well founded and the order taking cognizance/summoning is set aside. Now the Magistrate may pass an order taking cognizance if, he so chooses, by proceedings in this matter as a complaint case under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He can also keep this fact in mind that in view of the proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:-

¶14

"Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses--

¶15

(a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; "

¶16

With these observations, this application is finally disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 Manoj

¶18

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶19

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

Smt Sushila Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sushila Devi 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

Sangam vs State of U.P.

X- Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijendra Singh vs State of Up

Subhash Chand Mittal and Another vs State of Up and Another

Jagveer and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram Singh Meena vs State of U.P. and Another