# Smt. Savita Devi @ Savitri Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 119
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-10
- **Bench:** Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-savita-devi-savitri-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45760
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code (2 of 1974), Explanation to
Section 2 (d) - Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860) , Section 323, 504 - F.I.R.
U/ss 323 and 504 IPC - Charge sheet
filed under non-cognizance offences U/ss
323, 504 IPC - Magistrate took cognizance
& proceeded as a State/police case - Held -
charge-sheet submitted by the police in a
non-cognizable offence shall be treated to
be a complaint & and the police officer who
submitted the report has to be deemed to
be a complainant under Explanation to
Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. - Magistrate
directed by High Court to proceed with as a
complaint case & follow the procedure
prescribed for hearing of a complaint case
under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal
Procedure
-
order
of
cognizance
and
summoning order quashed.

Application allowed. (E-5)

## Text

6 All. Smt. Savita Devi @ Savitri Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
119
terms be also done, may also be done, then that
something else will be supplied by necessary
intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such
exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete
and substantial justice for which it exists. The
power possessed by the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude
but requires exercise with great caution and
circumspection.

11. It needs no emphasis that exercise of
inherent power by the High Court would
entirely depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper
for the court to provide a straitjacket formula
regulating the exercise of inherent powers under
Section 482. No precise and inflexible
guidelines can also be provided.

12. In present case, the compromise
agreed at Mediation Centre of Delhi High
Court, is with specific recital that family will
unite. Husband and wife along with children
will reunite and all cases filed by wife including
that civil case, wherein mediation was referred,
will be withdrawn. There were all prospective
acts to be taken, but this all was with prime
condition of union of family, but admittedly
union of family did not occur, rather a
proceeding for divorce has been filed and is
pending. Hence, the terms, for which, there was
mediation and agreement, could not be fulfilled.
The mediation proceeding took place on the
reference made in a civil case by Civil Judge
before Mediation Centre of Delhi High Court,
wherein other cases were also taken in
reference including present case. Parties entered
in agreement that the family will unite.
Husband and wife along with children will live
together and wife will withdraw her all cases.
Money etc., as per above agreement written, as
above, was to be exchanged. But, admittedly
the union of family could not be happened,
rather divorce petition has been filed by
husband. Hence, above mediation agreement
could not be complied by both sides. But, in this
criminal case, for compounding, as per Section
320 Cr.P.C., the fact of compromise, entered
voluntarily and duly verified by Magistrate, in
presence of both sides, is required and the same
is not there. Admittedly, neither parties have
filed a compromise duly and freely entered in
between before court of Magistrate, before
whom this trial is pending nor it has been
verified by trial court concerned. Hence, this
Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not to embark upon
question of fact, because it may prejudice fair
trial and it remain within domain of trial court,
which is to be decided on the basis of evidence
led by parties before trial court, but apparently
there was an F.I.R. of demand of dowry
coupled with cruelty and it was registered as
case crime number, wherein investigation was
made. There was statement of informant victim
with other witnesses, examined under Section
161 Cr.P.C., and on the basis of these evidence,
collected by Investigating Officer, charge sheet
was submitted, whereupon cognizance has been
taken by Magistrate concerned. Hence, prima
facie there was evidence for taking of
cognizance and it was taken. Now compromise
is not there. Hence, nothing appears to be abuse
of process of law. Accordingly, this application
merits its dismissal. The application is
dismissed as such.
----------

(2020)06ILR A119
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5567 of 2020

Smt. Savita Devi @ Savitri Singh & Anr.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Sri Pradeep Yadav, Sri Jeetendra Kumar
Yadav

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

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code (2 of 1974), Explanation to
Section 2 (d) - Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860) , Section 323, 504 - F.I.R.
U/ss 323 and 504 IPC - Charge sheet
filed under non-cognizance offences U/ss
323, 504 IPC - Magistrate took cognizance
& proceeded as a State/police case - Held -
charge-sheet submitted by the police in a
non-cognizable offence shall be treated to
be a complaint & and the police officer who
submitted the report has to be deemed to
be a complainant under Explanation to
Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. - Magistrate
directed by High Court to proceed with as a
complaint case & follow the procedure
prescribed for hearing of a complaint case
under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal
Procedure
-
order
of
cognizance
and
summoning order quashed.

Application allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A. G. A. and
perused the record.

2. This application under Section
482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by
applicants with a prayer for quashing
the entire proceedings of NCR No. 193
of 2015 (State vs. Savita Devi and
another), under Sections 323 and 504
I.P.C., P.S. Rohniya, district-Varanasi,
pending in the court of Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that initially an NCR was lodged by
the opposite party no. 2 at P.S.- Rohniya,
district-Varanasi in the aforesaid case. However,
after completion of investigation charge sheet
was submitted by the Investigation Officer
under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that the offence under Sections 323
and 504 I.P.C. is non-cognizable, hence in view
of the Explanation to Section 2 (d) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the case could not
proceed as State Case and it has to proceed as a
complaint case. He further submitted that the
learned Magistrate has erroneously taken the
charge-sheet as a State case.

5. Learned A. G. A. vehemently opposed
the submissions made by learned counsel for
the applicants.

6. It is not disputed that the offence under
Sections 323 and 504 I. P. C. is non-cognizable.

7. Explanation to Section 2 (d) of the Cr.
P. C. runs as under:

"Explanation- A report made by a
police officer in a case which discloses, after
investigation the commission of a noncognizable offence shall be deemed to be a
complaint; and the police officer by whom such
report is made shall be deemed to be the
complainant." 8. In view of the said
Explanation, report of the police officer after
investigation disclosing commission of noncognizable offence is to be deemed to be a
complaint and the police officer who submitted
the report has to be deemed to be a
complainant. 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 complaint case shall
be
applicable
to
that
case."
6 All. Anurag Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
121

9. In the present case from the material
brought on record it transpires that the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer
instead of being treated as a complaint, has been
treated as a State Case by the concerned
Magistrate, which is not permissible under law.

10. In view of the discussions made
above, this Court came to the conclusion that
impugned order of cognizance and summoning
order dated 01.04.2017 upon charge-sheet in a
case arising out of NCR in respect of bailable
and non-cognizable offences is wrong and
incorrect and is liable to be quashed.

11.

The
application
is
allowed
accordingly and the impugned order dated
01.04.2017 is quashed with a direction to
learned Magistrate for passing appropriate order
in accordance with law as well as provisions of
explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.

12. Let a copy of this order be sent to
court below for proceeding with the case in
accordance with law.
----------

(2020)06ILR A121
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5575 of 2020

Anurag Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Devendra Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code (2 of 1974), Explanation to
Section 2 (d) - Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860) , Section 323, 504 -
F.I.R. U/ss 323 and 504 IPC
-
charge-sheet submitted u/s 323 &504
I.P.C. - both the offences are bailable
and non-cognizable as per 1st Schedule
of Cr.P.C.- held - Magistrate illegally
took cognizance & proceeded as a
State/police
case
-
charge-sheet
submitted by the police in a noncognizable offence shall be treated to
be a complaint & and the police officer
who submitted the report has to be
deemed to be a complainant under
Explanation to Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. -
Magistrate directed to proceed with as a
complaint case & follow the procedure
prescribed for hearing of a complaint
case under Chapter XV of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure
-
order
of
cognizance
and
summoning
order
quashed (Para6,7,8)

Application allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A. G. A. and perused
the record.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr. P. C. has been filed by applicants with a
prayer for quashing the chargesheet dated
25.01.2019 and the entire proceedings of
Case No.2169 of 2019, arising out of NCR
No. 0140 of 2018, under Sections 323 and
504 I.P.C., P.S. Sipri Bazaar, district-Jhansi,
pending in the court of A.C.J.M, Jhansi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in NCR No.0140 of
2018, under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C.,
P.S. Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, in which
upon investigation charge-sheet has been