# Anurag Yadav & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 121
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 5575 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anurag-yadav-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45761
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code (2 of 1974), Explanation to
Section 2 (d) - Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860) , Section 323, 504 -
F.I.R. U/ss 323 and 504 IPC
-
charge-sheet submitted u/s 323 &504
I.P.C. - both the offences are bailable
and non-cognizable as per 1st Schedule
of Cr.P.C.- held - Magistrate illegally
took cognizance & proceeded as a
State/police
case
-
charge-sheet
submitted by the police in a noncognizable offence shall be treated to
be a complaint & and the police officer
who submitted the report has to be
deemed to be a complainant under
Explanation to Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. -
Magistrate directed to proceed with as a
complaint case & follow the procedure
prescribed for hearing of a complaint
case under Chapter XV of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure
-
order
of
cognizance
and
summoning
order
quashed (Para6,7,8)

Application allowed. (E-5)

## Text

6 All. Anurag Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
121

9. In the present case from the material
brought on record it transpires that the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer
instead of being treated as a complaint, has been
treated as a State Case by the concerned
Magistrate, which is not permissible under law.

10. In view of the discussions made
above, this Court came to the conclusion that
impugned order of cognizance and summoning
order dated 01.04.2017 upon charge-sheet in a
case arising out of NCR in respect of bailable
and non-cognizable offences is wrong and
incorrect and is liable to be quashed.

11.

The
application
is
allowed
accordingly and the impugned order dated
01.04.2017 is quashed with a direction to
learned Magistrate for passing appropriate order
in accordance with law as well as provisions of
explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.

12. Let a copy of this order be sent to
court below for proceeding with the case in
accordance with law.
----------

(2020)06ILR A121
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5575 of 2020

Anurag Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Devendra Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code (2 of 1974), Explanation to
Section 2 (d) - Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860) , Section 323, 504 -
F.I.R. U/ss 323 and 504 IPC
-
charge-sheet submitted u/s 323 &504
I.P.C. - both the offences are bailable
and non-cognizable as per 1st Schedule
of Cr.P.C.- held - Magistrate illegally
took cognizance & proceeded as a
State/police
case
-
charge-sheet
submitted by the police in a noncognizable offence shall be treated to
be a complaint & and the police officer
who submitted the report has to be
deemed to be a complainant under
Explanation to Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. -
Magistrate directed to proceed with as a
complaint case & follow the procedure
prescribed for hearing of a complaint
case under Chapter XV of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure
-
order
of
cognizance
and
summoning
order
quashed (Para6,7,8)

Application allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.)

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

2. This application under Section 482
Cr. P. C. has been filed by applicants with a
prayer for quashing the chargesheet dated
25.01.2019 and the entire proceedings of
Case No.2169 of 2019, arising out of NCR
No. 0140 of 2018, under Sections 323 and
504 I.P.C., P.S. Sipri Bazaar, district-Jhansi,
pending in the court of A.C.J.M, Jhansi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in NCR No.0140 of
2018, under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C.,
P.S. Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, in which
upon investigation charge-sheet has been
122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted under Sections 323 and 504
I.P.C. and both the offences are bailable and
non-cognizable as per 1st Schedule of
Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the provisions of
Explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., the
charge-sheet6 filed before the Magistrate is
to be treated as complainant and so the
order of Magistrate taking cognizance
dated 25.01.2019 is liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. though
did not dispute the legal position provided
in Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. but contended
that the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of
criminal case is malafide and misconceived
and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Before proceeding further, the
relevant provisions of Section 2 (d) of
Cr.P.C. are being reproduced for ready
reference as under:-

"Section
2(d)
of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973

2. Definitions.--In this Code, unless
the context otherwise requires,--

(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.

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
complainant."

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for
the parties and perusal of record, I find
that it may
not be disputed that offences under
Sections 323 & 504 I.P.C. are bailable
and non-cognizable and so the provisions
of explanation to Section 2(d) are
applicable to the case. The Magistrate has
taken cognizance without considering the
provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. and its
explanation clause. Undoubtedly in view
of the provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.,
the Magistrate was required to adopt the
procedure
of
a
complaint
case
as
provided.

7. In view of the discussions made
above, this Court came to the conclusion
that impugned order of cognizance and
summoning order dated 25.01.2019 upon
charge-sheet in a case arising out of NCR
in respect of bailable and non-cognizable
offences is wrong and incorrect and is
liable to be quashed.

8. The application is allowed
accordingly and the impugned order
dated 25.01.2019 is quashed with a
direction
to
learned
Magistrate
for
passing appropriate order in accordance
with law as well as provisions of
explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.

9. Let a copy of this order be sent to
court below for proceeding with the case
in accordance with law.
----------

(2020)06ILR A122
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5642 of 2020