# Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 907
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-08
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 2796 of 2021
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shafiya-khan-shakuntala-prajapati-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47416
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 494,495,416,420,504,506 -
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 198 - Prosecution for offences
against marriage - Section 155(4) - Where
a case relates to two or more offences of
which at least one is cognizable, the case
shall be deemed to be a cognizable case,
notwithstanding that the other offences
are non-cognizable.(Para - 9)

Accused - wife of deceased husband committed
the offences - solemnized second marriage with
the
complainant's
brother/deceased
by
concealing her first marriage - after his death
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
she fraudulently obtained all the service benefits
including job and pension - Charge sheet filed
under Sections 494/416/420/504/506 I.P.C -
magistrate took cognizance - issued process -
petitioner
also
committed
the
offence
punishable under Sections 420/ 504/ 506/ 467/
468/471 I.P.C. apart from the offence under
Section 494 I.P.C. - case relates to more than
two offence, out of which at least one is
cognizable. (Para - 9)

HELD:-The
magistrate
in
this
case
has
committed no illegality while taking cognizance
as the charge sheet discloses the commission of
more than two offences out of which at least
one is cognizable, hence, the case shall be
treated to be a cognizable case notwithstanding
that the other offences are non-cognizable.(Para
- 10,11 )

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

2004 CRI. L.J. 2329 ,Parminder Kaur & ors. Vs
Jaginder Kaur & anr.

## Text

9 All Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati Vs. State of U.P.
907
the offence and the chances of ultimate
conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing criminal
proceedings to be continue. In S.W.
Palankattkar & others Vs. State of
Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
quashing of the criminal proceedings is an
exception than a rule. The inherent powers
of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C
itself envisages three circumstances under
which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under
the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. The power of
High Court is very wide but should be
exercised very cautiously to do real and
substantial justice for which the court alone
exists.

12. With the assistance of the
aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the
nature and gravity and the severity of the
offence which are more particularly is
matrimonial private dispute and differences
it is deem proper and meet to the ends of
justice.
The
proceeding
of
the
aforementioned case be quashed.

13.

The
present
482
Cr.P.C.
application stands allowed. Keeping in
view the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the above referred judgment
and in view of the statement/compromise
made by Vipin Kumar as well as opposite
party no.2 and the observation made above,
the entire proceedings of Case No.14943 of
2020 (Pramod Kumar and others vs. State),
arising out of case crime no.29 of 2020,
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354,
354B, 376, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.
Act, P.S. Mahila Thana District Meerut is
hereby quashed and both the parties are
free to live their independent life.

14. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

15. The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2021)09ILR A907
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 2796 of 2021

Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ajay "Madhavan"

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 494,495,416,420,504,506 -
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 198 - Prosecution for offences
against marriage - Section 155(4) - Where
a case relates to two or more offences of
which at least one is cognizable, the case
shall be deemed to be a cognizable case,
notwithstanding that the other offences
are non-cognizable.(Para - 9)

Accused - wife of deceased husband committed
the offences - solemnized second marriage with
the
complainant's
brother/deceased
by
concealing her first marriage - after his death
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
she fraudulently obtained all the service benefits
including job and pension - Charge sheet filed
under Sections 494/416/420/504/506 I.P.C -
magistrate took cognizance - issued process -
petitioner
also
committed
the
offence
punishable under Sections 420/ 504/ 506/ 467/
468/471 I.P.C. apart from the offence under
Section 494 I.P.C. - case relates to more than
two offence, out of which at least one is
cognizable. (Para - 9)

HELD:-The
magistrate
in
this
case
has
committed no illegality while taking cognizance
as the charge sheet discloses the commission of
more than two offences out of which at least
one is cognizable, hence, the case shall be
treated to be a cognizable case notwithstanding
that the other offences are non-cognizable.(Para
- 10,11 )

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

2004 CRI. L.J. 2329 ,Parminder Kaur & ors. Vs
Jaginder Kaur & anr.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2.Notice
is
dispensed
with
to
respondent no. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in this case, the F.I.R. has been
lodged by the brother of the alleged
husband of the petitioner under Section
494/495/416/420/504/506
I.P.C.,
Police
Station Bazaar Khala, District Lucknow.

4. It is further submitted that these are
illegal proceedings and the same cannot be
permitted to continue in view of the
specific bar provided under Section 198
Cr.P.C.

5. It is next submitted that while filing
charge sheet, Section 495 I.P.C. has been
dropped by the investigating officer and the
informant in this case is not a person
aggrieved so as to lodge an F.I.R. or
complaint under Section 494 I.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
in support of his contention has relied on
judgment reported in 2004 CRI. L.J. 2329
"Parminder Kaur and others Vs. Jaginder
Kaur and another" and also on the
judgment reported in "1964 SCC Online
Kar 148" "State Vs. Gangaram and others".

7. Per contra learned A.G.A. has
submitted that when the first information
given to the police having contents of both
cognizable and non-cognizable i.e. two or
more offence out which at least one is
cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be
a cognizable case irrespective of the fact
that the other offences are non-cognizable
and thus, the F.I.R. can certainly be lodged
by the brother of the deceased husband and
there is no illegality in the same.

8. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that
law in this regard has been settled. When
the accused commits other offences apart
from the offence under Section 494 I.P.C.
and they are cognizable and if the police
files a charge sheet, the magistrate can
definitely take cognizance of Section 494
I.P.C. along with other cognizable offences
in view of the specific provisions of
Section 155(4) of Criminal Procedure
Code.

9. On due consideration to the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties so also the perusal of the record,
this Court finds that in the present case the
accused who is alleged wife of the
deceased husband has committed the
9 All Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati Vs. State of U.P.
909
offences
under
Section
494/495/416/420/504/506
I.P.C.
and
allegedly she had solemnized the second
marriage
with
the
complainant's
brother/deceased by concealing her first
marriage and after his death it is alleged
that she fraudulently obtained all the
service benefits including job and pension.
Charge sheet in the case has been filed
under Sections 494/416/420/504/506 I.P.C
and upon that learned magistrate has taken
the cognizance and issued the process.
Since the petitioner has also committed the
offence
punishable
under
Sections
420/504/506/467/468/471 I.P.C. apart from
the offence under Section 494 I.P.C.,
therefore, this case relates to more than two
offence, out of which at least one is
cognizable and therefore, in view of the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 1428/2011 "Subhash
Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
another", the case must be deemed to be
cognizable case notwithstanding that the
other offences are non-cognizable. The
relevant paras of the said judgment is
extracted as under:-

"Even if it is assumed for the sake
of argument that in view of Section
198(1)(c)
of
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, the Magistrate is disentitled to
take cognizance of the offences punishable
under Section 494 and 495 IPC despite the
State amendment making those offences
cognizable, this Court notices that in
Mavuri Rani Veera Bhadranna (supra), the
Division Bench has considered effect of
Section 155(4) of the Criminal Procedure
Code and thereafter held that the bar under
Section 198 would not be applicable as
complaint lodged before police for offence
under Section 494 IPC also related to other
cognizable offences and if police files a
charge
sheet,
the
Court
can
take
cognizance also of offence Reportable
under Section 494 along with other
cognizable offences by virtue of Section
155(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

15. Section 155(4) of the Code
inter alia provides that:-

"Where a case relates to two or
more offences of which at least one is
cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be
a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the
other offences are non-cognizable"

Here in this case in the charge
sheet it is mentioned that the appellant has
also committed offence punishable under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code
which is cognizable and therefore this is a
case which relates to two or more offences
of which at least one is cognizable and
therefore the case must be deemed to be
cognizable case notwithstanding that the
other offences are non- cognizable.

This is not a case in which the
FIR is exclusively filed for commission of
offences under Section 494 and 495 IPC.

The case of the respondent no. 2
is that the appellant has committed offences
punishable under Sections 417, 420, 494,
495 and 498A of the IPC. A question may
arise as to Reportable what should be the
procedure to be followed by a complainant
when a case involves not only non-
cognizable offence but one or more
cognizable offences as well. It is somewhat
anomalous that the aggrieved person by the
alleged commission of offences punishable
under Section 494 and 495 IPC should file
complaint before a Court and that the same
aggrieved person should approach the
police officer for alleged commission of
offences under Sections 417, 420 and 498A
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Indian Penal Code. Where the case
involves one cognizable offence also
alongwith
non-cognizable
offences
it
should not be treated as a non- cognizable
case for the purpose of sub-section 2 of
Section 155 and that is the intention of
legislation which is manifested in Section
155(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Therefore, the argument that the learned
Magistrate
could
not
have
taken
cognizance of the offences punishable
under Section 494 and 495 IPC on the
basis of submission of charge sheet, cannot
be accepted and is hereby rejected."

10. Hence, in view of the settled
position of law, the magistrate in this case
has committed no illegality while taking
cognizance as the charge sheet discloses
the commission of more than two offences
out of which at least one is cognizable,
hence, the case shall be treated to be a
cognizable case notwithstanding that the
other offences are non-cognizable.

11. In view of the above, it cannot be
said that there is any illegality committed
by the leaned Magistrate while taking
cognizance. The petition lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A910
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

U/s 482/378/407. No. 8150 of 2019
&
Criminal Revision No. 1593 of 2019

Om Prakash Jaiswal & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Pramod Kumar Shukla, Ashish Kumar Mishra,
Rohit Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., A.S.G., Anurag Kumar Singh

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 120-B, 420 - The Code of
criminal
procedure,
1973
-
Section
161,397(2) - Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988
-
Section 13(2)
read
with
13(1)(d) - falsehood or the truthfulness of
the allegations can only be tested in the
trial .(Para -52)

Joint surprise check conducted by a team of CBI
officials, railways vigilance and RDSO officials -
three samples - PVC Insulated Railway Signaling
Cable, PVC Insulated Railway Signaling Cable
and PVC Insulated Railway Signaling power
cable - collected from the sites - sent by the CBI
for quality analysis at the signal lab of RDSO,
Lucknow - sample test report given by the
signal lab - cables found failed in certain vital
parameters
-
did
not
meet
standards
specifications - discharge application by the
applicants and revisionist - rejected by the order
of the Special Judge .(Para - 28,46,48)

HELD:- All the submissions are pertaining to
the factual aspect of the case and the veracity
of claims and counter claims by the applicants/
revisionist
and
the
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation could only be tested during the
trial but at this stage it is not a case where the
proceedings should have been culminated by
discharging the accused persons.
No
illegality appears to have been committed by
the Special Judge by rejecting the prayer of the
applicants/ revisionist of their discharge and
resultantly the revision as well as application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. moved by the
applicants and revisionist is liable to be
dismissed .(Para - 52,53)

Revision as well as Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I., (2010)3 SCC (Cri)
1371 (I)