# Om Prakash & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 222
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 3041 of 2022
- **Bench:** Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/om-prakash-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48746
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section 482 - Scope -
Charge-sheet - Quashing of - If FIR and
other material on record collected by the
Investigating Officer during investigation
discloses
prima
facie
offence
then,
proceedings pending against the accused
persons cannot be quashed under Section
482 Cr.P.C. - Veracity of the allegation
made in the FIR and in the St.ments of
witnesses cannot be adjudicated at this
stage
and
the
same
can
only
be
adjudicated by the trial court during the
course of trial. (Para 11)
B. Criminal Procedure Code - S. 482 -
Cognizance
by
Magistrate,
how
far
reasoned order need to be passed - Held,
if cognizance was taken on police report,
then there is no need to pass a fully
reasoned order, if from the perusal of
cognizance order it appears that court
below has applied its mind to the
materials on record - Afroz Mohammad
Hasanfatta's
case
and
Pradeep
S.
Wodeyar's case relied upon. (Para 18)
Application dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matter of Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Gupta and
others (supra) pertains to dispute between
the parties with regard to parentage,
whereas in the instant case, the DNA test
has not been asked to be conducted to
establish the relationship between the
applicant and informant rather the same has
been requested to prove the innocence of
the applicant, therefore, there would be no
impinge on his personal liberty and his
right to privacy of the informant or his
family members.

15. It is the case of the applicant that
false naksha najri has been prepared to
implicate him as the incident has taken
place somewhere else and is shown to have
occurred at the place mentioned in the FIR,
it would be primary to ascertain the place
of incident first so as to gain faith in the
prosecution story as narrated in the FIR.
The said requirement can be best served by
obtaining DNA result of the blood sample
of the informant or his relative with the
blood stained earth recovered from the
alleged place of occurrence. While making
such observation, this Court is mindful of
the fact that DNA test is not to be
directed as a matter of routine and in
only deserving cases where strong prima
facie case is made out, such direction may
be given. Since the life of the applicant is
stake as he is accused of offence under
Section 302 IPC, it is must to ascertain and
test the truthfulness of the prosecution case.

16.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances in entirety, this Court is of the
opinion that to arrive at just decision of the
case and to avoid any suspicion or doubt in
the prosecution case, it would be in the
interest of justice that DNA test may be
conducted and thus the learned Court below
has committed an illegallity in passing the
impugned order, therefore the same is liable
to be set aside.

17. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated
11.10.2021
passed
by
learned
Additional District Judge, Court No.8,
District Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 573 of
2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 368 of
2012 under Section 302 I.P.C. Police Station
Kosi Kalan, District Mathura, is set aside and
the blood sample of informant or any of his
family members be taken for conducting the
DNA test with the blood stained earth
collected
from
the
alleged
place
of
occurrence to unearth the truthfulness of the
prosecution case.

18. The aforesaid exercise may be
completed within a period of one month from
the date of production of a certified copy of
the order before the concerned court below.

19. The instant application is allowed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 222
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 3041 of
2022

Om Prakash & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, Sri Pankaj
Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
8 All. Om Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
223
A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section 482 - Scope -
Charge-sheet - Quashing of - If FIR and
other material on record collected by the
Investigating Officer during investigation
discloses
prima
facie
offence
then,
proceedings pending against the accused
persons cannot be quashed under Section
482 Cr.P.C. - Veracity of the allegation
made in the FIR and in the St.ments of
witnesses cannot be adjudicated at this
stage
and
the
same
can
only
be
adjudicated by the trial court during the
course of trial. (Para 11)
B. Criminal Procedure Code - S. 482 -
Cognizance
by
Magistrate,
how
far
reasoned order need to be passed - Held,
if cognizance was taken on police report,
then there is no need to pass a fully
reasoned order, if from the perusal of
cognizance order it appears that court
below has applied its mind to the
materials on record - Afroz Mohammad
Hasanfatta's
case
and
Pradeep
S.
Wodeyar's case relied upon. (Para 18)
Application dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors.; 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335
2. M/s. Neeharika Inrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St.
of Mah. & ors.; AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1918
3. St. of Guj. Vs Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta;
(2019) 20 SCC 539
4. Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs The St. of Karn.;
2021 SCC OnLine SC 1140
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.N. Singh, learned
counsel for the applicants, Sri Arvind
Kumar, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record of the case.

2. By way of present application,
applicants made prayer to quash the
charge-sheet
no.
1
of
2020
dated
01.01.2020
as
well
as
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
20.03.2020 and the proceedings of Case
No.232 of 2020 (State V.s Om Prakash and
another) arising out of Case Crime No. 212
of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308
IPC, Police Station Usrahar, District
Etawah pending in the court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Etawah.

3. According to the FIR of the present
case, on 09.11.2019 at about 9.00 AM in
the morning, applicants assaulted opposite
party no.2 and others through wooden
sticks while they were working in the field
and due to their assault, Ravindra Kumar
sustained serious injuries and he was
referred to Etawah for treatment. FIR of the
present case was lodged on 28.11.2019
under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and
during investigation, it revealed that
actually two persons sustained injuries,
namely Anoop Kumar and Ravindra Kumar
and both were medically examined. During
investigation, it further revealed that in the
incident skull bone of Ravindra Kumar
fractured and during investigation, the
Investigation Officer also recorded the
statements of injured witnesses and other
eye witnesses and submitted charge-sheet
on 01.01.2020 against the applicants under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC. After
submission of charge-sheet, court below on
20.03.2020 took the cognizance and issued
summons to the applicants.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that applicants have been falsely
implicated in the present matter and the
FIR of the present case was lodged after
about 20 days of the incident and this fact
itself shows that FIR is totally false and
baseless. He further submitted that out of
two persons who sustained injuries, one
person namely, Anoop Kumar sustained
simple injuries and other injured person,
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
namely Ravindra Kumar, who also alleged
to sustained injuries, but his injury report is
not on record and only his X-ray report is
on record. However, his X-ray report
shows that his parietal bone was fractured
but as there is no injury report of Ravindra
Kumar on record, therefore, merely on the
basis of X-ray report, charge-sheet under
Section 308 IPC cannot be filed. He further
submitted that earlier a day before i.e.
08.11.2019, the side of opposite party no.2
assaulted the applicants side and due to
their assault from the side of applicants
several persons sustained injuries and FIR
was also lodged from applicant side. He
further submitted that after lodging the FIR
from applicants side, the opposite party
no.2 with intention to save skin, lodged the
FIR of the present case on false allegations
and without any proper investigation
charge-sheet
was
filed
against
the
applicants in the present matter.

5. He next submitted that the
cognizance order of the present case is
bad as it is cryptic in nature and passed in
printed proforma and from the perusal of
the cognizance order, it reveals that it
was passed without any application of
mind.
He
placed
reliance
on
the
following judgments.

(i) Application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. No. 19647 of 2009 (Ankit
Vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on
15.10.2009.

(ii) Application under Section
482
Cr.P.C.
No.
17364
of
2020
(Emmanuel Masih and others Vs. State of
U.P. and another) decided on 04.01.2021.

(iii) Application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. No. 683 of 2021 (Ved
Krishna Vs. State of U.P. and another)
decided on 11.02.2021.

(iv) Application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. No. 11334 of 2021 (Pankaj
Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and another)
decided on 09.08.2021.

(v) Application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. No.41617 of 2019 (Vishnu
Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of
U.P. and another) decided on 11.11.2020.

6.

Per
contra,
learned
AGA
submitted
that
there
is
specific
allegations against the applicants in the
FIR as well in the statements of injured
persons that they assaulted and caused
injuries and injury report of one injured is
also on record and if injury report shows
that the injuries are simple in nature then
on that basis the proceedings of the
present case cannot be quashed. Learned
AGA further submitted that as X-ray
report of one injured, namely Ravindra
Kumar is on record, which shows that his
parietal bone was fractured, therefore,
charge-sheet was rightly filed against the
applicants under Section 308 IPC.

7. He further submitted that present
matter is a State case, therefore, there is no
need to pass a detailed cognizance order
and perusal of the cognizance order reveals
that while passing the same, the court
below perused the case diary and other
documents and evidences collected by the
Investigating Officer during investigation,
therefore, there is no illegality in the
cognizance order dated 20.03.2020 and the
present
application
is
liable
to
be
dismissed.

8. I have heard both the parties and
perused the record of the case.

9. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has been very elaborately discussed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of
Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and
others reported in [1992 Supp (1) SCC
8 All. Om Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
225
335] and in paragraph 102 enumearated 7
categories of the cases where power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised which
is quoted as follows:-

"102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating
to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in
the
first
information
report
or
the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156 (1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155 (2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

10. Recently the three Judge Bench of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Neeharika
Inrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in
[AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1918] also
discussed the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
and Article 226 of Constitution of India in
very detail manner and in paragraph-23
arrived at final conclusion as under:

i) Police has the statutory right
and duty under the relevant provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure contained
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate
into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any
investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report
that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should
be exercised sparingly with circumspection,
as it has been observed, in the ''rarest of
rare cases (not to be confused with the
formation in the context of death penalty).

v)
While
examining
an
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought
not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR
should be an exception rather than an
ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are
barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the
police, since the two organs of the State
operate in two specific spheres of activities
and one ought not to tread over the other
sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary
and the police are complementary, not
overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases
where non-interference would result in
miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the
stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent
powers of the Court do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is
not an encyclopedia which must disclose
all facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation
by the police is in progress, the court
should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be
permitted to complete the investigation. It
would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no
substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may
file an appropriate report/summary before
the learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of
wide power requires the court to be more
cautious. It casts an onerous and more
diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time,
the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had
to the parameters of quashing and the selfrestraint imposed by law, more particularly
the parameters laid down by this Court in
the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan
Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash
the FIR/complaint;

xv) When a prayer for quashing
the FIR is made by the alleged accused and
the court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider
whether the allegations in the FIR disclose
commission of a cognizable offence or not.
The court is not required to consider on
merits whether or not the merits of the
allegations make out a cognizable offence
and
the
court
has
to
permit
the
investigating agency/police to investigate
the allegations in the FIR;

xvi) The aforesaid parameters
would be applicable and/or the aforesaid
8 All. Om Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
227
aspects are required to be considered by the
High Court while passing an interim order in
a quashing petition in exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, an interim order of stay of
investigation during the pendency of the
quashing petition can be passed with
circumspection. Such an interim order should
not require to be passed routinely, casually
and/or mechanically. Normally, when the
investigation is in progress and the facts are
hazy and the entire evidence/material is not
before the High Court, the High Court should
restrain itself from passing the interim order
of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be
adopted" and the accused should be
relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent
court. The High Court shall not and as such
is not justified in passing the order of not to
arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either
during
the
investigation
or
till
the
investigation is completed and/or till the final
report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173
Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the
quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High
Court is prima facie of the opinion that an
exceptional case is made out for grant of
interim stay of further investigation, after
considering the broad parameters while
exercising the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India referred to hereinabove,
the High Court has to give brief reasons why
such an interim order is warranted and/or is
required to be passed so that it can
demonstrate the application of mind by the
Court and the higher forum can consider
what was weighed with the High Court while
passing such an interim order.

xviii) Whenever an interim order
is passed by the High Court of "no coercive
steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid
parameters, the High Court must clarify
what does it mean by "no coercive steps to
be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps
to be adopted" can be said to be too vague
and/or broad which can be misunderstood
and/or misapplied.

11. Therefore, law is settled that if
FIR and other material on record collected
by
the
Investigating
Officer
during
investigation discloses prima facie offence
then, proceedings pending against the
accused persons cannot be quashed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and veracity of the
allegation made in the FIR and in the
statements
of
witnesses
cannot
be
adjudicated at this stage and the same can
only be adjudicated by the trial court during
the course of trial.

12. Perusal of the FIR and statements
of the injured persons, namely Anoop
Kumar and Ravindra Kumar shows that
there was specific allegation against the
applicants that they assaulted through
wooden stick and due to their assault two
persons sustained injuries. Both the injured
persons Anoop Kumar and Ravindra
Kumar were medically examined and their
statements were also recorded by the
Investigating Officer under Section 161
Cr.P.C. Perusal of injury report of Anoop
Kumar shows that he sustained two
injuries. One abrasion and one contusion
and X-ray report of another injured person
Ravindra Kumar shows that his parietal
bone was fractured, therefore, their injury
report substantiated the allegation made in
the FIR as well as their statements recorded
during investigation. Therefore, it cannot
be said that prima facie no cognizable
offence against the applicants is made out.
The argument of learned counsel for the
applicants is that actually a day before
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicants side was assaulted by the side of
opposite party no.2 and applicants side also
sustained injuries and in this regard FIR
was also lodged from the side of applicants,
therefore, only due to this reason, the FIR
of the present case was lodged, but this
argument cannot be appreciated at this
stage as, in case at hand, two persons
sustained injuries, therefore, on the ground
of enmity proceeding pending against the
applicants cannot be quashed. As, from the
perusal of the charge-sheet and other
documents on record, prima facie offence
under Section 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC is
made out against the applicants, therefore,
there is no illegality in the charge-sheet
dated
01.01.2020
filed
against
the
applicants.

13. The next argument advanced by
learned counsel for the applicants is that
cognizance order was passed by the court
below on printed proforma in cryptic
manner, which reflects non-application of
judicial mind.

14. The present case is a State case, in
which, after investigation charge-sheet has
been submitted and court below took
cognizance on the basis of police report.

15. The Apex Court in case of State
of
Gujarat
Vs.
Afroz
Mohammad
Hasanfatta (2019) 20 SCC 539 observed
as:-

"23. Insofar as taking cognizance
based on the police report is concerned, the
Magistrate has the advantage of the
charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and
other evidence collected by the police
during the investigation. Investigating
officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence
during the investigation conducted in
compliance with the provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and in accordance
with the rules of investigation. Evidence
and materials so collected are sifted at the
level of the investigating officer and
thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In
appropriate cases, opinion of the Public
Prosecutor is also obtained before filing
the charge- sheet. The court thus has the
advantage of the police report along with
the materials placed before it by the police.
Under Section 190(1)(b) Code of Criminal
Procedure, where the Magistrate has taken
cognizance of an offence upon a police
report and the Magistrate is satisfied that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding,
the Magistrate directs issuance of process.

In case of taking cognizance of an
offence based upon the police report, the
Magistrate is not required to record
reasons for issuing the process. In cases
instituted on a police report, the Magistrate
is only required to pass an order issuing
summons to the Accused. Such an order of
issuing summons to the Accused is based
upon
satisfaction
of
the
Magistrate
considering the police report and other
documents and satisfying himself that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the Accused. In a case based upon the
police report, at the stage of issuing the
summons to the Accused, the Magistrate is
not required to record any reason. In case,
if the charge-sheet is barred by law or
where there is lack of jurisdiction or when
the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on
file, then the Magistrate is required to
record his reasons for rejection of the
charge-sheet and for not taking it on file."

16. Recently, three judge Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Pradeep S.
Wodeyar Vs. The State of Karnataka
2021
SCC OnLine
SC 1140
after
considering the matter in detail observed in
paragraph no. 75 as:-
8 All. Om Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
229

"75. The Special Judge, it must be
noted, took cognizance on the basis of a
report submitted under Section 173 Code of
Criminal Procedure and not on the basis of
a private complaint. Therefore, the case is
squarely covered by the decision in Afroz
Mohammed
Hasanfatta
(supra).
The
Special Judge took note of the FIR, the
witness
statements,
and
connected
documents before taking cognizance of the
offence. In this backdrop, it would be farfetched to fault the order of the Special
Judge on the ground that it does not
adduce
detailed
reasons
for
taking
cognizance or that it does not indicate that
an application of mind. In the facts of this
case,
therefore,
the
order
taking
cognizance is not erroneous."

17. Further, the Apex Court in para 85
(viii) summarised as:-

"85 (viii) Since cognizance was
taken by the Special Judge based on a
police report and not a private complaint,
it is not obligatory for the Special Judge to
issue a fully reasoned order if it otherwise
appears that the Special Judge has applied
his mind to the material;"

18. Therefore, from the perusal of the
judgment of Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta
(supra) and Pradeep S. Wodeyar (supra) it
is clear that if cognizance was taken on
police report, then there is no need to pass a
fully reasoned order, if from the perusal of
cognizance order it appears that court
below has applied its mind to the materials
on record.

19. In the present case, cognizance
order dated 20.03.2020 shows that while
passing it, the court below perused the
charge-sheet, case diary and other documents,
which were collected by the Investigating
Officer during investigation and thereafter
court was of the view that prima facie ground
for taking cognizance is sufficient, therefore,
it cannot be said that without perusing the
materials on record, court below took the
cognizance. It cannot be said that as
cognizance order was passed on printed
proforma, therefore, court below did not
apply its judicial mind. Therefore, I find no
illegality in the cognizance order dated
20.03.2020. The cases relied by the counsel
for the applicants are of this Court and as
Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta (supra) and
Pradeep S. Wodeyar (supra) are the
judgments of the Apex Court, therefore,
judgments
relied
by
counsel
for
the
applicants would not help him.

20. The Apex Court in case of Pradeep
S. Wodeyar (supra) also discussed the scope
of Section 465 Cr.P.C. and observed in
paragraph no. 53 as:-

"53. In order to prove that the
irregularity vitiates the proceeding, the
accused must prove a ''failure of justice' as
prescribed under Section 465 Code of
Criminal Procedure. In view of the discussion
in the previous section on the applicability of
Section 465 Code of Criminal Procedure
(and the inability to prove failure of justice)
to the cognizance order, the irregularity
would not vitiate the proceedings. Moreover,
bearing in mind the objective behind
prescribing that cognizance has to be taken
of the offence and not the offender, a mere
change in the form of the cognizance order
would not alter the effect of the order for any
injustice to be meted out."

21. Further, the Apex Court in
paragraph no. 85(ii) summarised as:-

"85(ii) The objective of Section
465 is to prevent the delay in the
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
commencement and completion of trial.
Section 465 Code of Criminal Procedure is
applicable to interlocutory orders such as
an order taking cognizance and summons
order as well. Therefore, even if the order
taking cognizance is irregular, it would not
vitiate the proceedings in view of Section
465 Code of Criminal Procedure;"

22. Therefore, as per Pradeep S. Wodeyar
(supra) even if there is an irregularity in
cognizance order then also on that ground
proceedings in view of Section 465 Cr.P.C.
cannot be vitiated.

23. Therefore, from the above discussion,
it is clear that although there is no illegality in
the cognizance order dated 20.03.2020 as
before taking cognizance court below perused
the case diary and other documents and chargesheet but even if there was an irregularity in the
cognizance order, then also on the basis of it
proceedings of the present case cannot be
quashed as order of taking cognizance are
interlocutory in nature and as per Section 465
Cr.P.C. proceedings on the basis of that
irregularity cannot be vitiated.

24. Therefore, from the above discussion,
I find no merit in the present application.

25. Accordingly, the present application is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 230
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4432 of 2021, 4433 of
2021 & 4441 of 2021

Awadhesh Pratap Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Satya Prakash, Abhishek Vishwakarma,
Ravi Singh, Shikhar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Praveen Tripathi, Sushil Kumar Singh

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section 482 - Charge-sheet -
Quashing of - FIR u/s 420, 467, 468, 471,
120-B IPC - FIR by a member of society
against the society itself leveling charge
of indulging in construction of flats on
Nazul land - Violation of lease deed, how
far constitute offence - Held, it is for the
St. Government to take action if there was
any violation/infraction of the lease deed
executed in favour of the Original Lessee
who sold the land in favour of the Housing
Society but for this fact the FIR could not
have been registered against the Society
or its Members on behalf of the opposite
party No. 3 who himself claims to be the
member of the Society - High Court
quashed
the
Charge-sheet
for
being
wholly untenable. (Para 36, 38 and 39)
Application allowed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Present petitions under Section 482
Cr.P.C. have been filed for quashing of the
charge-sheet dated 24.09.2021 in FIR
No.0085 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 120B IPC registered at Police
Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow as
well as summoning order/cognizance order
dated 05.10.2021 passed by leaned Special
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI
AP), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.NIL
and entire proceedings of FIR No.0085 of
2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
120B IPC, Police Station Wazirganj,
District Lucknow.