# Smt. Savita Devi @ Savitri Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 937 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-02-10 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 5567 of 2020 - **Bench:** Ajit Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-savita-devi-savitri-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46138 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974)- Section 2 (d), Explanation - Charge sheet in non cognizable offence - 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 such case (Para 8) Charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, U/ss 323 & 504 I.P.C., both offence non-cognizable, instead of being treated as a complaint, has been treated as a State Case by the concerned Magistrate - held same is not permissible under law - Cognizance & summoning order quashed - Magistrate directed for passing appropriate order in accordance with provisions of explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. (Para 9, 11) Allowed. (E-4) ## Text 1 All. Smt. Savita Devi @ Savitri Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 937 that order, or if the respondents were dispossessed after the Magistrate made the preliminary inquiry. In the absence of specific findings on these matters, he could not have passed the order impugned, which has been affirmed in manifest error by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 26. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District - Farrukhabad in Case No. 30 of 2016, under Section 145 of the Code, and the order dated 24.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Farrukhabad, in Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2017 are hereby quashed. The parties are free to suit their rights on merits in the pending civil suits. Since possession was taken from the petitioners under an order of attachment by the Magistrate in these proceedings, the same shall be forthwith caused to be restored by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Farrukhabad to the petitioners, if not already restored, in compliance with the interim order earlier made in this case. 27. Nothing said here would affect the determination of the parties' rights at the trial of the two suits pending between them or any suit that may be instituted about the adjudication of their rights relating to the property in dispute. 28. Let this order be communicated to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Farrukhabad for strict compliance and to the learned Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad for record, by the Joint Registrar (Compliance). ---------- (2021)01ILR A937 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 Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Pradeep Yadav, Sri Jeetendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974)- Section 2 (d), Explanation - Charge sheet in non cognizable offence - 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 such case (Para 8) Charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, U/ss 323 & 504 I.P.C., both offence non-cognizable, instead of being treated as a complaint, has been treated as a State Case by the concerned Magistrate - held same is not permissible under law - Cognizance & summoning order quashed - Magistrate directed for passing appropriate order in accordance with provisions of explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. (Para 9, 11) Allowed. (E-4) (Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. and perused the record. 938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 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 noncognizable. 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 non-cognizable 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 non-cognizable 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 chargesheet submitted by the police in a noncognizable offence shall be treated to be a complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of complaint case shall be applicable to that case." 9. In the present case from the material brought on record it transpires that the charge-sheet 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. 1 All. Kiran Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 939 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to court below for proceeding with the case in accordance with law. ---------- (2021)01ILR A939 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J. Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 47244 of 2020 Kiran Kumar ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opp. Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Sanjive Kumar Gupta Counsel for the Opp. Party: A.G.A. A. Civil Law - Essential Commodities Act,1955-Section 3/7-application-grant of bail-inordinate delay of 17 days in FIRapplicant running fair price shop for 10 years-no complaint ever made by the villagers-FIR lodged with ulterior motive due to village partybandi-Hence, the prayer for bail is granted. (Para 2 to 6) The bail application is allowed. (E-5) List of Cases cited: Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.(2018) 3 SCC 22 (Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. 2. Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.254 of 2020 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Dataganj, District Budaun. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. As per the F.I.R. version the alleged incident took place on 10.08.2019 at 17-00 hours and the complainant lodged the F.I.R. on 27.08.2019 and no explanation for the inordinate delay of 17 days had been explained. As per statement under Section 161 CrPC, of the complainant he reiterated the F.I.R. version.Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has track record of running fair price shop for the last 10 years and no complaint was ever made by the villagers. The present F.I.R. was lodged due to village partyband and bad relations with the local leaders. 4. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 27.10.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.