# Charan Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1463
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-23
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1594 of 2020
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/charan-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45515
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal law - Indian Penal Code,
1860- Section 504/ 506 - Criminal Law
Amendment
Act,
1932-
Section
10-
Cr.P.C, 1973- Section 2(d) - Offence under
Section 506 I.P.C. can not be treated as noncognizable since the offence under Section 506
I.P.C. has been made, cognizable, non-bailable
and non-compoundable vide U.P. Govt. vide
Notification No. 777/VIII-94(2)-87 dated July
31, 1989 the provisions of Section 2 (d) of
Cr.P.C. will not be applicable to the present
case.

The U.P. Govt. vide Notification No. 777/VIII94(2)-87 dated July 31, 1989 made the offence
u/s 506 I.P.C. as cognizable and non-bailable in
accordance with the power conferred by virtue
of Section 10 of Criminal Law Amendment Act,

## Text

2 All. Charan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1463
Division), is by considering the affidavit
filed by the named eye witnesses is not
legally sustainable. It is true that the
statement of the cited witness was not
recorded by the Investigating Officer.
Investigating Officer committed the gross
negligence in this matter. It is incumbent
duty of the Investigating Officer to record
the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of
named witnesses cited in the FIR, it is
obligatory upon the Magistrate either to
direct the Investigating Officer to further
investigate the matter under Sections
156(3) Cr.P.C. or adopt the procedure of
complaint case as per law laid down by
Pakhandu Vs. State of U.P. (Supra).

14.

Considering
the
rival
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record, I am of
the view that the impugned order dated
7.12.2019 which clearly indicates that the
Magistrate considered the affidavit filed
alongwith Protest Petition which cannot be
sustained and summoning order is liable to
be set aside.

15. The present application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. is allowed.

16. The impugned order dated
7.12.2019 is hereby set aside and the case
is remanded back to the Magistrate,
concerned with the direction to pass fresh
order in light of the settled legal position
as discussed above.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1463

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1594 of 2020

Charan Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Garun Pal Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal law - Indian Penal Code,
1860- Section 504/ 506 - Criminal Law
Amendment
Act,
1932-
Section
10-
Cr.P.C, 1973- Section 2(d) - Offence under
Section 506 I.P.C. can not be treated as noncognizable since the offence under Section 506
I.P.C. has been made, cognizable, non-bailable
and non-compoundable vide U.P. Govt. vide
Notification No. 777/VIII-94(2)-87 dated July
31, 1989 the provisions of Section 2 (d) of
Cr.P.C. will not be applicable to the present
case.

The U.P. Govt. vide Notification No. 777/VIII94(2)-87 dated July 31, 1989 made the offence
u/s 506 I.P.C. as cognizable and non-bailable in
accordance with the power conferred by virtue
of Section 10 of Criminal Law Amendment Act,
1932.
The
legality
and
validity
of
the
notification was upheld by the Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Mata Sewak Upadhyay
and another versus State of U.P. and others .
Later, in the case of Virendra Singh and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others, a Division Bench
of this court declared the above notification as
illegal since the earlier Full Bench decision was
not brought before the Division Bench and it
was not considered. Subsequently, in the case
of Parveen Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P.
and another, it was observed that since the
Full Bench decision of this Court in Mata Sevak
Upadhyaya has not been over-ruled or setaside by any larger Bench of this Court or by
the Apex Court, so the decision of Division
Bench in Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others (supra) case cannot be given effect to.
Judgment of this Court passed in Application
U/S 482 No. 1212 of 2020, Charan Singh and 3
others vs. State of U.P. and another - held not
1464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicable in facts of the present case. (Para
7,8,9)

Application u/s 482 Cr.Pc rejected.

Case law discussed:-

1. Mata Sewak Upadhyaya vs. St. of U.P. &
ors., reported in (1995) AWC 2031

2. Virendra Singh . & ors. Vs. St. of U.P. & ors.,
(2002) 45 ACC 609

3. Parveen Kumar . & ors. Vs. St. of U.P. &
anr., ADJ (2011) 5 418

4. Application U/S 482 No. 1212 of 2020,
Charan Singh & 3 ors. Vs. St. of U.P. & anr.,
(Distinguished on facts)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and learned A.G.A.

2.

The
present
482
Cr.P.C.
application has been filed to quash the
entire proceedings of case No. 771/IX of
2015 (State vs. Charan Singh & others),
arising out of case crime No. 393 of 2014,
under sections 504, 506 IPC, Police
Station Raya, District Mathura, pending in
the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura.

3. Brief facts of this case are as
follows-:

4. On 17.09.2014 a First Information
Report was lodged by opposite party no. 2
against the applicants and 15 other
persons, under sections 147, 148, 149,
307, 504, 506, 452, 354, 431, 352, 434
IPC, alleging therein that on 10.07.2014
the applicants along with other co-accused
persons entered into his house and accused
persons also carrying country made pistol,
rifle and other dangerous weapons in their
hands and not only abused his family
members but also brutally beaten them and
also tried to kill them by opening fire from
the weapons carrying in their hands. The
FIR was lodged on 17.09.2014 at 15.30
hours. During investigation the statement
of first informant and witnesses were
recorded by investigating officer. During
investigation about 50 villagers gave their
affidavits to the S.S.P. Mathura and also
the investigating officer in the present
case, stating therein that just to achieve his
ulterior motive the opposite party no. 2
lodged the present FIR while no such
incident was taken place in the village.
After conclusion of the investigation,
investigating officer submitted charge
sheet dated 31.12.2014, under sections
504, 506 IPC, against present applicants
and exonerated the rest other named
accused persons. It is also submitted that
on 19.06.2015, cognizance was taken by
learned court below and summons were
issued against the applicants and thereafter
applicants were surrendered before the
court below and got themselves bailed out
on 06.09.2016. Thereafter on 18.01.2018
the charges were framed against the
applicants in an arbitrary and mechanical
manner and thereafter on 27.06.2019
statement of P.W. 1 was recorded. It is
further submitted that the applicants have
been falsely implicated in the present case
and he also submitted that the alleged
incident had taken place on 10.07.2014
and its FIR was lodged on 17.09.2014 by
the opposite party no. 2 after delay of
more than two months without explaining
any reason of delay.

5. Mere contention of learned
counsel for the applicants is that the
charge-sheet under sections 504, 506 IPC
was submitted by investigating officer and
no offence under section 506 (part -2) is
2 All. Charan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1465
made out against the applicants and the
essential ingredients was also missing in
the FIR and in the statements recorded
under section 161 Cr.P.C. as such the
proceedings of present case is barred by
Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. Section 2 (d)
Cr.P.C. provided that a report made by
police officer in a case, which discloses
after investigation, the commission of a
non-cognizable
offence,
so
the
proceedings of present case only be
proceeded only by making the complaint
and procedure of the complaint case
should be adopted by the court below.

6. Learned AGA has vehemently
opposed the application by contending that
the case relied upon the applicants is not
applicable to the present case by means of
Notification No. 777/VIII-94(2)-87 dated
July 31, 1989 has made the offence under
section 506 I.P.C. as cognizable and nonbailable offence, whereas in the present
case under section 506 I.P.C. is also
involved,
which
according
to
U.P.
Amendment is cognizable and nonbailable. Learned AGA has placed reliance
reliance on the full Bench judgment of this
Court rendered in the case of Mata Sewak
Upadhyaya vs. State of U.P. and others,
reported in 1995 AWC 2031 wherein
validity of notification making section 506
IPC as a cognizable offence has been
upheld.

7. Considered the rival submissions
of the parties.

The offence under section 506 I.P.C.
was made cognizable and non-bailable vide
U.P. Government Notification No. 777/VIII94(2)-87 dated July 31, 1989 but later on in
the case of Virendra Singh and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2002(45) ACC 609 a
Division Bench of this court declared the
above notification making the offence under
section 506 I.P.C. cognizable and non-bailable
as illegal.

Section 10 of Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1932, gives power to the
State Government to declare certain offences
cognizable and non-cognizable by issuing
notification in the official Gazette. The U.P.
Government vide Notification No. 777/VIII94(2)-87 dated July 31, 1989 has made the
offence under section 506 I.P.C. as cognizable
and non-bailable. The legality and validity of
this notification came up for consideration
before the Full Bench of this Court in the case
of Mata Sewak Upadhyay and another versus
State of U.P. and others (supra) wherein the
Full Bench of this Court held the aforesaid
notification as valid.

The above matter again came for
consideration of this Court, in the case of
Parveen Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P.
and another, ADJ 2011 (5) 418, wherein it
was observed that since the Full Bench
decision of this Court in Mata Sevak
Upadhyaya and another Vs. State of U.P. and
others (supra) has not been over-ruled or setaside by any larger Bench of this Court or by
the Apex Court, so the decision of Division
Bench in Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others (supra) case cannot be given effect to.

A
perusal
of
judgment
of
Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others (supra) makes it clear that the Full
Bench decision of this Court rendered in
the case of Mata Sevak Upadhyaya and
another Vs. State of U.P. and others
(supra) was not brought before the
Division Bench and it was neither
considered nor discussed nor distinguished
by the Division Bench.

8. In view of the discussions made
above, I am of the considered view that
offence under Section 506 I.P.C. can not
be treated as non-cognizable as per
1466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the applicants and since the offence
under Section 506 I.P.C. has been made,
cognizable,
non-bailable
and
noncompoundable vide above mentioned
notification in the State of U.P., the
provisions of Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. will
not be applicable to the present case.

Accordingly,
the
impugned
charge sheet and the impugned order of
cognizance passed by Judicial Magistrate
are not liable to be quashed and the prayer
for quashing the same is refused.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants
relied upon the judgment of this Court
passed in Application U/S 482 No. 1212
of 2020, Charan Singh and 3 others vs.
State of U.P. and another, in which
initially the NCR No. 104 of 2013, under
sections 427, 504, 506 IPC was lodged at
P.S.
Raya,
District
Mathura.
After
investigation, the police has submitted
charge sheet against the applicants under
sections 427, 504, 506 IPC before the
concerned court below and this Court has
held that since the report of the police
officer
after
investigation,
disclosing
commission of no-cognizable offence is to
be deemed to be a complaint and the
police officer, who submitted the report
has been deemed to be a complaint. In
other words, the charge-sheet submitted by
the police in a non-cognizable offence
shall be treated to be a complaint and the
procedure prescribed for hearing of the
complaint case shall be applicable to that
case. Since, in this case charge-sheet
submitted under setions 504, 506 IPC. The
judgment of this Court in Charan Singh
and 3 others (supra) relied by the learned
counsel for the applicants is not applicable
to the present case in that judgment neither
the U.P. Notification No. Notification No.
777/VIII-94(2)-87 dated July 31, 1989 nor
the Full Bench judgment of this Court in
Mata Sevak Upadhyaya and another Vs.
State of U.P. and others (supra) was
discussed in which the validity of above
Notification held valid and affirm that the
offence under section 506 IPC is a
cognizable and non-bailable.

10. With the above observations, the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
devoid of merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the application is
dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1466

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1720 of 2020

Sukhvanti Devi & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Sri Abhishek
Kumar Saroj

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections-498-A and 304-B - Appeal against
conviction.

Death, being an unnatural death, within seven
years of marriage, coupled with accusation of
demand of dowry and cruelty with regard to it
against accused in-laws was there in the first
information report. The same was also there in