Satyendra Jain and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 70

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27903 of 2024

Applicant :- Satyendra Jain And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Niklank Kumar Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sunil Singh,G.A.,Rajrshi Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Amit Daga, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sunil Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2.

¶6

2. Perused the record.

¶7

Challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the summoning order dated 18.04.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Criminal Case No. 2576 of 2022 (Prashant Kumar @ Raja Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 36 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Tundla, District-Firozabad, now pending in Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, whereby Court below has not only allowed the protest petition dated 04.04.2024 filed by first informant/opposite party-2 against police report dated 25.04.2022 submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., rejected the police report dated 25.04.2022 submitted by the Investigating Officer, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. but also has simultaneously taken cognizance, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and summoned the applicants to face trial.

¶8

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 19.01.2020, a delayed FIR dated 22.01.2020 was lodged by first informant-Prashant Kumar Jain @ Raja and was registered as Case Crime No. 0036 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C. Police Station-Duntala, District-Firozabad. In the aforesaid FIR, an unknown person has been arraigned as an accused.

¶9

After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by him, during course of investigation, including the statements of various witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is not established. He, accordingly, opined to submit the final report.

¶10

Investigating Officer, thus, submitted the police report dated 25.04.2022 (final report) in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C..

¶11

Upon submission of aforementioned police report before Court below, the first informant Smt. Reena Devi i.e. opposite party-2 herein filed her protest petition dated 04.04.2024 against the same. It is apposite to mention here that under the Code i.e. Cr.P.C., there is no provision regarding filing of protest petition by the first informant against the police report. However, the same has now been provided for by the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police And Another, (1985) 2 SCC 537 .

¶12

After aforementioned protest petition was filed, Court below proceeded to consider the police report in the light of the protest petition. Ultimately, vide order dated 18.04.2024, Court below allowed the protest petition filed by the first informant-opposite party-2, rejected the police report dated 25.04.2022, and simultaneously summoned the applicants, under Section 302 IPC.

¶13

Mr. Amit Daga, the learned counsel for applicants submits that the order impugned in present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is manifestly illegal being in excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶14

According to the learned counsel for applicants, the words "charge sheet" and "final report" have not been defined in the Code i.e. Cr.P.C. The Code (Cr.P.C.) only speaks of the police report. Section 190 Cr.P.C. provides for the procedure to be adopted by the jurisdictional Magistrate upon submission of the police report. The parameters regarding exercise of jurisdiction by Court, under Section 190 Cr.P.C. now stands crystallized by the judgment of Supreme Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2019) 8 SCC 27.

¶15

It is then submitted by the learned counsel for applicants that once the police report dated 025.04.2022 submitted by Investigating Officer was set aside (NIRAST) by Court below then in that eventuality, the Court concerned could not have taken cognizance upon the same, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Admittedly, summoning order dated 18.04.2024 was passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Criminal Case No. 2576 of 2022 (Prashant Kumar @ Raja Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 36 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Tundla, District-Firozabad, now pending in Court of Chief Judicial

¶16

Magistrate, Firozabad only after taking of cognizance upon same. The concerned Court can proceed with the matter as a state case only when the Court has taken cognizance upon the police report as explained above. Since there was no police report in existence, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken by Court below on the basis of police report. The proper course for the Court below was not to accept the police report (ASWIKAR) and then proceed with the matter. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that the order impugned cannot be sustained and is, therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶17

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sunil Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 have vehemently opposed the present application. They submit that the order impugned in present application is perfectly just and legal. Court below, while exercising it's jurisdiction under Section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C. can look into the papers accompanying the police report and on basis thereof, arrive at it's own independent conclusion. The Court is not bound by the opinion expressed by the Investigating Officer in the police report. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application inasmuch as, cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned only after prima-facie satisfaction has been recorded that criminality alleged to have been committed by applicants is ex-facie apparent as per the papers accompanying the police report. They, therefore, submit that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. The same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Having heard Mr. Amit Daga, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sunil Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the solitary issue that has emerged for consideration before this Court is as to:- whether after rejecting the police report submitted by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., yet the Magistrate can exercise jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. by taking cognizance upon the said police report and proceed with the matter as a state case.

¶19

The issue so raised is no longer res-integra and stands concluded by the judgments of this Court in following cases;- (1) Hari Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2016 ADJ Online, 0185 (Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2001) and (2) Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8563 of 2023 (Smt. Bhuri Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 15.03.2023 . This Court in

¶20

aforementioned judgments has held that once the Magistrate has rejected (NIRAST) the police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. then the Magistrate is denuded of his jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and proceed with the matter as a state case. In view of above, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

¶21

As a result, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

¶22

It is, accordingly, allowed.

¶23

The impugned summoning order dated 18.04.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Criminal Case No. 2576 of 2022 (Prashant Kumar @ Raja Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 36 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Tundla, District-Firozabad, now pending in Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad is, hereby, set aside.

¶24

The matter shall stand remitted to Court concerned for passing a fresh order in the light of observations made herein above. The necessary exercise shall be undertaken by Court below within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the cost is made easy.

¶26

Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Imtiyaz

¶27

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyendra Jain and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Jain and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gulsar vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Ekta Chauhan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prajjwal Nishad @ Prajjwal Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Afjal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Faeem Alias Atm vs State of U.P.

Anju Devi vs State of U.P. and Another