# Satvir Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. 230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES - **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 229 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-11-26 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 18110 of 2009 - **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satvir-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-230-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-47511 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Law- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - Section 2(d)- Section 200 (a) -Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 504- Charge sheet has been submitted under Section 504 IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence and in view of the explanation to Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., the charge sheet is to be treated as a complaint. It is a statutory mandate that where a police report under section 173(2) of the CrPc / Charge sheet is submitted in a non-cognizable offence, then the magistrate has to treat the same as a complaint and proceed in the matter like a complaint case. Criminal Application allowed. (E-3) ( Para 8) Judgements/ Case law relied upon:- ## Text 2 All. Satvir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 229 shown that there is legal bar against institution or continuance of proceedings, Court would interfere. For example, absence of requisite sanction could be one of such matters where Court would be justified for quashing the proceedings exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Next category is where allegations contained in F.I.R. or complaint, if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety to be correct still do not constitute the offence alleged. While framing its opinion Court will not examine or appreciate any evidence and it will only look to the complaint or F.I.R. to decide whether offence alleged is made out or not. If no offence is made out, Court would be justified to interfere. Then the third category is where allegations made against accused persons may constitute offence alleged but there is either no "legal evidence" adduced in support of case or evidence adduced, clearly and manifestly, fails to prove the charge. In such case also interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified. 18. The case in hand will come under Second category as from reading the complaint in which new item of Hindi daily newspaper dated 15.3.1999 is quoted in paragraph no.2 of the complaint, no offence under Section 500 I.P.C. is made out, hence proceedings initiated by Magistrate in the case in hand is patently illegal and amount to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, to secure ends of justice interference of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is justified and called for. 19. Honb'le Supreme Court in recent case reported in 2020 (113) ACC 904, D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain has discussed the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. & found that the interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceeding is justified, the paragraph no.77 of the said judgment is as follows:- "It is well settled that an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of process of court. If, on the face of the complaint, the act alleged appears to have a reasonable relationship with official duty, where the criminal proceeding is apparently prompted by mala fides and instituted with ulterior motive, power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code would have to be exercised to quash the proceedings, to prevent abuse of process of Court." 20. In view of the discussion made above, the application is allowed. The proceeding of the Complaint Case No.412 of 1999, under Section 500 I.P.C. (Ajeet Singh Tomar Vs. Khichchu Singh & Others) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar against the applicant only is quashed. It is made clear that by this order the proceedings against remaining accused has not been quashed. There is no order as to costs. ---------- (2022)02ILR A229 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Application U/S 482 No. 18110 of 2009 Satvir Singh ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties 230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Rajiv Gupta, Sri Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. (A) Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - Section 2(d)- Section 200 (a) -Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 504- Charge sheet has been submitted under Section 504 IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence and in view of the explanation to Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., the charge sheet is to be treated as a complaint. It is a statutory mandate that where a police report under section 173(2) of the CrPc / Charge sheet is submitted in a non-cognizable offence, then the magistrate has to treat the same as a complaint and proceed in the matter like a complaint case. Criminal Application allowed. (E-3) ( Para 8) Judgements/ Case law relied upon:- 1. Dr. Prakash Kumar Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & anr, 2007(59) ACC 998 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicant by means of the present Criminal Misc. Application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., assails the proceedings of Case Crime No.4997 of 2008 (State Vs. Satvir & others) under Section 504 IPC based on charge sheet No.227 dated 18.06.2008 as also the order dated 16.07.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby and whereunder the applicant had been summoned to face trial under Section 504 IPC. 3. The facts giving rise to the Case Crime No.4997 of 2008 are that one Sri Raje S/o Surjan Singh (opposite party No.2), lodged a FIR at Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar, alleging that on 11.04.2008 at about 11:30 PM in the night when he was sleeping in the verandah along with his family, one Raju S/o Ratan Lal came at his house and started exhorting them to came out. Along with Raju S/o Ratan Lal, the applicant Satvir Singh is alleged to be present holding a gun, Aman holding a pistol is alleged to have fired at the house. The first informant along with his family members, somehow managed to rescue themselves. Kushal S/o Ratan Lal is alleged to have jumped over the wall and opened the gate of the house whereafter Ajab Singh and Gajab Singh, sons of Satvir Singh (applicant) are stated to have brandished "pharsa" and threatened the informant and his family members. 4. The police after investigation submitted a charge sheet against the applicant under Section 504 IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, taking cognizance of the charge sheet summoned the applicant to face trial by order dated 16.07.2008. 5. This Court vide order dated 12.11.2009 stayed the further proceedings of the Case No.4997 of 2008, under Section 504 IPC till the next date of listing. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order summoning the applicant is not sustainable, inasmuch as the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 504 IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence and in view of the explanation to Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., the charge sheet is to be treated as a complaint. The 2 All. Ashok Kumar Nigam Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 231 Magistrate is required to proceed with the case as complaint case. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance upon the explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:- "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 office by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complaint." 7. He submits that on the basis of the aforesaid explanation, which has been interpreted by a Single Judge decision of this Court in Dr. Prakash Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2007(59) ACC 998, holding that when the charge sheet is only of non-cognizable offences, in view of the aforesaid provisions, the charge sheet should be treated as a complaint. 8. The argument is well founded and resultantly the order taking cognizance is set aside. The Magistrate may pass an order taking cognizance, if he so chooses, by proceeding in the matter as a complaint case, under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. He may also keep in mind the proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:- "Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses- (a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; That is if the complainant who gives the information in writing is a public servant, who is acting in discharge of its official duties, it may not be necessary to examine the complainant and the witnesses and the Magistrate may pass an order under section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure taking cognizance of the case instead of section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C." 9. In view of the above, the Magistrate shall pass appropriate order, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. With these observations, this application stands allowed. ---------- (2022)02ILR A231 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. Application U/S 482 No. 35914 of 2008 Ashok Kumar Nigam ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Manas Bhargava Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 204 -Summoning Order - The Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind and not recorded reasons before summoning the accused to stand trial in complaint case being oblivious of the fact that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of the Magistrate must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.