Babloo Alias Aurangjeb Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2025NA528/8777/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-cognizable offences Sections 323, 504 IPC; charge-sheet to be treated as complaint under Section 2(d) (Explanation) Cr.P.C.; cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC; Magistrate's order refusing applicability of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. set aside as against law and violating High Court's remand direction dated 27.11.2024; fresh summoning order directed; S. 528 BNSS application disposed of; CJM Varanasi; Criminal Case No. 2528 of 2021; Case Crime No. 609 of 2020.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 2528 of 2021 set aside; matter remanded back to the learned C.J.M., Varanasi to pass an order on the point of summoning afresh, in accordance with law. Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. disposed of. ¶¶14

Babloo Alias Aurangjeb Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet filed for the non-cognizable offences under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. is to be treated as a complaint case in terms of Section 2(d) (Explanation) Cr.P.C., with cognizance to be taken as a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, rather than as a State case. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

Since the charge-sheet was submitted for the non-cognizable offences under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C., it has to be considered as a complaint case in terms of Section 2(d) (Explanation) Cr.P.C., and cognizance has to be taken as a complaint in terms of Section 190(1)(a) CrPC.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

The learned Magistrate's observation that the provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. are not applicable is against law and also violates the direction of this Court dated 27.11.2024; the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 is consequently against law and liable to be set aside.

¶¶13

Key takeaways

On remand, the learned Magistrate was bound to follow the direction and observations made by this Court while remanding the case back.ratio¶¶13
In view of the explanation sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, no adverse remark is being made against him.obiter¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 8777 of 2025, decided 11.7.2025 — Charge-sheet for non-cognizable offences under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. (Case Crime No. 609 of 2020, P.S. Sigra, Varanasi) must be treated as a complaint case in terms of Section 2(d) (Explanation) Cr.P.C., with cognizance taken as a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, not as a State case. The impugned order dated 15.01.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 2528 of 2021, holding that provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. are not applicable, was held to be against law and in violation of the High Court's direction dated 27.11.2024 (passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 34218 of 2024, whereby the summoning order dated 25.01.2021 had been quashed and the matter remanded for a fresh order); the learned Magistrate was bound to follow the directions issued on remand. Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to the C.J.M., Varanasi to pass an order on the point of summoning afresh in accordance with law; application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. disposed of. No adverse remark made against the C.J.M. in view of his explanation.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111392

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8777 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Babloo Alias Aurangjeb Khan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred against the order dated 15.01.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 2528 of 2021 (State Vs. Babloo alias Aurangjeb Khan & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 609 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi and to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi to pass proper and fresh order in pursuance of order dated 27.11.2024.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the instant case charge sheet was submitted for offence under sections 323, 504 I.P.C., which are non-cognizable offence but the cognizance was taken as a State case vide order dated 25.01.2021. The applicants have filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. (34218 of 2024) against summoning order dated 25.01.2021, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 and the summoning order dated 25.01.2021 was quashed and matter was remanded back to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It is further submitted that in pursuance to order of this Court, learned Magistrate has passed

¶9

impugned order dated 15.01.2025 and held that provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. are not applicable in the instant matter. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the observations of learned Magistrate are not only against law but in fact the observations of learned Magistrate are a deliberate attempt to violate the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by this Court.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. is also agreed that offences are non-cognizable hence the charge-sheet for offence under 323, 504 IPC has to be considered as a complaint case in terms of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. and cognizance has to be taken accordingly.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

It is apparent from the record that after investigation, the charge sheet against the applicants was submitted for offence under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C., which are non-cognizable offence and thus, the charge-sheet for offence under 323, 504 IPC has to be considered as a complaint case in terms of section 2(d) (explanation) of Cr.P.C. and cognizance has to be taken as a complaint in terms of section 190(1)(a) CrPC. However, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance as a State case vide order dated 25.01.2021. The said order was set aside by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024, passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 34218 of 2024, by observing that in terms of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. the said charge sheet has to be treated as a complaint and cognizance has to be taken accordingly. It appears that despite that direction of this Court, learned Magistrate has again passed order dated 15.01.2025 by holding that provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the matter. Apparently, this observation of learned Magistrate is against law and the same also violates direction of this Court. Learned Magistrate was bound to

¶13

follow the direction and observations made by this Court while remanding the case back. Though in his comments, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has stated that cognizance has been taken as Complaint case but the same is not reflected from impugned order. Perusal of impugned order clearly shows that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has observed that provisions of section 2 (d) CrPC are not attracted. Be that as it may, in view of explanation sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, no adverse remark is being made against him. It is clear that impugned order is against law and also against the spirit and observations of this court, hence liable to be set aside.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 2528 of 2021 (State Vs. Babloo alias Aurangjeb Khan & Others) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned C.J.M., Varanasi to pass an order on the point of summoning afresh, in accordance with law.

¶15

The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.7.2025 SK Srivastava

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Babloo Alias Aurangjeb Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babloo Alias Aurangjeb Khan and 3 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases