# Manoj Rana v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1330 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2012-08-16 - **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-rana-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42398 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482cognizance taken by Magistrate on charge sheet-offence under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.-Revisional Court set-a-side the order placing reliance upon Division Bench judgment-the offence under section 506 being Non-cognizable-can be tried as complaint case-held-ignoring Full Bench judgment of Mata Sewak Upadhyaycognizable offence took place-revisional Court committed great illegality-order taking cognizance by Magistrate restored. Held: Para-7 and 8 The decision of Mata Sewak Upadhyay (supra) still holds good and has not been overruled nor anything has been argued in this respect by the learned A.G.A. It appears that at the time of hearing of the case of Virendra Singh (supra) the decision of Mata Sewak Upadhyay (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench. In view of the decision of Full Bench on the same subject, the decision of Division Bench cannot be given effect to. In view of the foregoing discussions it can safely be said that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is not non-cognizable, hence the impugned order passed by the lower revisional court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The provisions of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. do not apply in the present case. The submission of leaned counsel of the applicant in this regard finds force. The impugned order passed by the lower revisional court is set aside and the order of the Magistrate dated 1.4.2010 is hereby restored. Accordingly, the matter is sent back to the Magistrate, who may proceed in the case in accordance with law. Case Law discussed: [2002 (45) ACC 609 Alld.]; 1995 JIC 1168 (All) (FB) ## Text 1330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 dated 16.08.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pilibhit are hereby quashed, the learned Magistrate concerned is directed to pass a fresh release order, in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the observations made in this order. It will be open to the learned Magistrate to give opportunity of hearing to the victim of the accident before passing the order. It is expected that the entire exercise shall be completed, preferably, within 15 days from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J. Application U/S 482 No. - 22517 Of 2012 Manoj Rana ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vivek Kumar Singh Sri Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Govt.Advocate Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482cognizance taken by Magistrate on charge sheet-offence under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.-Revisional Court set-a-side the order placing reliance upon Division Bench judgment-the offence under section 506 being Non-cognizable-can be tried as complaint case-held-ignoring Full Bench judgment of Mata Sewak Upadhyaycognizable offence took place-revisional Court committed great illegality-order taking cognizance by Magistrate restored. Held: Para-7 and 8 The decision of Mata Sewak Upadhyay (supra) still holds good and has not been overruled nor anything has been argued in this respect by the learned A.G.A. It appears that at the time of hearing of the case of Virendra Singh (supra) the decision of Mata Sewak Upadhyay (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench. In view of the decision of Full Bench on the same subject, the decision of Division Bench cannot be given effect to. In view of the foregoing discussions it can safely be said that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is not non-cognizable, hence the impugned order passed by the lower revisional court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The provisions of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. do not apply in the present case. The submission of leaned counsel of the applicant in this regard finds force. The impugned order passed by the lower revisional court is set aside and the order of the Magistrate dated 1.4.2010 is hereby restored. Accordingly, the matter is sent back to the Magistrate, who may proceed in the case in accordance with law. Case Law discussed: [2002 (45) ACC 609 Alld.]; 1995 JIC 1168 (All) (FB) (Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.) 1. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. As the matter involves a pure question of law, is squarely covered by a Full Bench Decision of this Court, hence, no notice is required to be given to the opposite party nos.2 to 5 of the application and the matter is disposed of after hearing the learned AGA on behalf of the State. 3 All] Manoj Rana V. State of U.P. and others 1331 3. By invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the applicant has filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 25.5.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 54 of 2012, Hukam Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, Police Station Daurala, District Meerut. 4. Briefly stated, an FIR was lodged by the applicant against opp. parties No. 2 to 5 as Case Crime No. 755 of 2009, under Section 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Daurala, District Meerut on 11.11.2009 regarding the incident dated 15.7.2009. Thereafter, the police investigated the matter and Section 452 I.P.C. was not found to be true by the police but rest case was found to be true and the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. against the opp. parties No. 2 to 5. Learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the officence vide order dated 1.4.2010. Thereafter, the opp. parties No. 2 to 5 challenged the aforesaid order in criminal revision No. 54 of 2012 on the ground that the learned Magistrate has wrongly taken cognizance for offence vide order dated 1.4.2010 and the case should not be proceeded as complaint as the offences are non-cognizable offence and the State cannot proceed. Learned Revisinal Court vide order dated 25.5.2012 allowed the criminal revision for the reason that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is noncognizable offence and the case should proceed as complaint case and summoned the applicant to face the trial for the aforesaid offences. 5. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the lower revisional court has wrongly placed reliance on the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh and others versus State of U.P. and others [2002 (45) ACC 609 Alld., wherein it was held that the offence under Sections 506 IPC was declared cognizable and nonbailable vide U.P. Government Notification no.777/VIII-9-4 (2)-87 dated 31.7.1989, but the same has been held illegal by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh (supra). Thus, the notification ceases to have any impact and the offence under Section 506 IPC remains to be non-cognizable and bailable. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the said judgment of the Division Bench is not a good law as it has failed to consider a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mata Sewak Upadhyay versus State of U.P. 1995 JIC 1168(All) (FB) where the legality and validity of this notification came for consideration. Without going into the details of the decision, for the purpose of this case, it may be pointed out that the aforesaid Full Bench decision lays down that Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 is not merely an Amending Act but that is a blend of substantive provisions as well as the provisions amending Cr.P.C. of 1898. So the Act of 1932 is still on the statute book, notwithstanding the repeal of Cr.P.C. 1898. It was further held that applying the rule of construction as laid down in Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, it becomes clear that the notification issued u/s 10 with reference to Cr.P.C. 1998 should be read as having been issued with reference to the Cr.P.C. 1973. It was held that law has to be construed in such a fashion as to make it workable and enforceable than redundant. It was held that Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Government Notification no.777/VIII-9-4 (2)-87 dated 31.7.1989 making Section 506 I.P.C. cognizable and non-bailable offence are valid. 1332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 6. The learned A.G.A. could not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law as has been held by the Full Bench decision in the case of Mata Sewak Upadhyay (supra). 7. The decision of Mata Sewak Upadhyay (supra) still holds good and has not been overruled nor anything has been argued in this respect by the learned A.G.A. It appears that at the time of hearing of the case of Virendra Singh (supra) the decision of Mata Sewak Upadhyay (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench. In view of the decision of Full Bench on the same subject, the decision of Division Bench cannot be given effect to. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions it can safely be said that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is not non-cognizable, hence the impugned order passed by the lower revisional court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The provisions of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. do not apply in the present case. The submission of leaned counsel of the applicant in this regard finds force. The impugned order passed by the lower revisional court is set aside and the order of the Magistrate dated 1.4.2010 is hereby restored. Accordingly, the matter is sent back to the Magistrate, who may proceed in the case in accordance with law. 9. The application stands allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.10.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27624 of 2006 Mohd. Danish ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Shailendra Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226cancellation of application-Fire Arm License-on ground no genuine need proved by applicant-inspite of having every positive report-rejection on such frivolous ground-amounts to abuse of power-direction issued to award adverse entry against those guilty officer-if no criminal case found against petitionerD.M. to grant license. Held: Para-6 Accordingly, it is directed that if henceforth any such matter comes before the Court where D.M. has refused to grant the arm licence on patent/ frivolous ground that actual need had not been proved by the applicant, direction will be issued for making adverse entry in the service record of the said D.M. Case Law discussed: 1977 ACC Page 499; 2010 (10) A.D.J. 782; 2012 (8) A.D.J. 170 (Delivered by Hon'ble S. U. Khan, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.