Partly allowed¶15

Mahadev v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2025A482/41495/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition; Section 323 IPC non-cognizable offence; Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. definition of 'complaint' and its Explanation (police report disclosing non-cognizable offence deemed complaint); cognizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2022 quashed; remand for fresh order on judicial mind; Case No. 7375 of 2022 (State v. Mahadev); Case Crime No. 105 of 2022; P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur; Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur; Allahabad High Court; Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.; 2025:AHC:36209.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of: impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2022 quashed; matter remanded to the concerned Magistrate to pass a fresh order after applying judicial mind. ¶15

Mahadev Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36209

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41495 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mahadev Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar,Ram Surat Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Shri Dharmendra, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ladly Pandey, AGA for the State are present.

¶7

The Present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.7375 of 2022 (State v. Mahadev) arising out of Case Crime No.105 of 2022, under Section 323 of IPC, P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur as well as congizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2022, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. has been registered against the applicant at Police Station Sumerpur, District Hamirpur, under Section 323 of I.P.C. registered as Case Crime No. 105 of 2022. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 323 of I.P.C. and the magistrate took cognizance under Section 323 of I.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. is non-cognizable offence 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 by whom such report is

¶13

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 26.07.2022C passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, 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 :- 11.3.2025 Akram

¶17

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

Mahadev v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadev 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases