# Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 291
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1808 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sudhir-kumar-goyal-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53671
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Instruments Act, 1881, and framing of charges
under SS. 420 & 406 IPC, pending before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate. The issue raised was
whether FIR registration by police under S. 138
of the N.I. Act is impermissible in law in view of
the bar contained in S. 142(a) of the Act.

Headnotes
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 420 and 406
- The Negotiable instruments Act, 1981 -
S. 138,142 - Cognizance - Complaint by
payee
or
holder
mandatory
-
FIR
registration impermissible - Police - Power
to investigate under Special Acts - FIR not
maintainable where statute provides for
complaint procedure only - Magistrate's
Duty - Duty to scrutinize FIR and avoid
mechanical cognizance - Directions -
Issuance of comprehensive instructions
for training police and prosecutors.
Held: No case was made out for quashing the
charge sheet against the applicant in respect of
the offences under SS. 420 and 406 IPC - It is
impermissible in law for the police to register an
FIR under S.138 of the N.I. Act - Trial court to
rehear the applicant afresh at the stage of
charge only for SS. 420 & 406 IPC. - Impugned
cognizance and charge orders dated 03.06.2024
and 18.07.2024, insofar as they relate to S.138
of the N.I. Act, are quashed - Directions issued
to the A.D.G. (Prosecution) and A.C.S. (Home)
to circulate a list of Special Acts where FIR
registration is barred; to train Investigating
Officers accordingly - District Judges directed to
sensitize Judicial Officers not to take cognizance
on police reports under such Special Acts - In 38
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Special Acts (referred to in paragraph 17)
besides others, the police are not empowered to
register an FIR, and if inadvertently done, the
same shall be referred to the respective
department or to the competent person to deal
with
the
issue
involved
and
subsequent
investigation by treating the same as an
information or narration of facts - Application
partly
allowed.(Paras
19.2,
20,
2122,23,24,25,26,27,29) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
N. Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas (2018) 13
SCC 663; Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh & Another 2024 SCC
Online SC 2248; Jayant v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 670; Prashant Kumar
Singh v. The State of Jharkhand Cr.M.P.
No.3501 of 2019; In Union of India v. Ashok
Kumar Sharma (2021) 12 SCC 674; Jeewan
Kumar Raut' case (2009) 7 SCC 526; Rasila S
Mehta v. Custodian, Nariman Bhawan Mumbai
(2011)6 SCC 220; Dr. Aparna Singhal v. State
of Haryana Criminal Mise. No. M-421 of
2021 (PHC); Dr. Anant Ram v. State of
Haryana, 2022 SCC Online P&H 2284; Dr.
Brij Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024:
AHC:159207

List of Acts
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973; Indian
Penal Code, 1860
Acts where FIR registration impermissible
(illustrative list): Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881; Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957; PC & PNDT Act, 1994; Consumer
Protection Act, 2019; Environment (Protection)
Act,
1986;
Trade
Marks
Act,
1999;
Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues
Act, 1994; Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace Act, 2013; Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; and others -
total 38 Special Acts.
Acts where FIR registration permissible:
NDPS Act, Arms Act, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, POCSO Act, Prevention of
Corruption Act, IT Act, etc.

List of Keywords
Negotiable Instruments Act - FIR registration
impermissible - Cognizance - Complaint - Special
Acts - Police powers - Magistrate's duty -
Prosecution - Sensitization - Directions -
Compliance
-
Bulandshahr
-
A.D.G.
(Prosecution) - S.S.P. - Quashing of cognizance
- Judicial mind.

Case Arising From
Criminal Case No. 6627 of 2024, titled State v.
Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Anr., arising out of Case
Crime No. 18 of 2024, P.S. Kotwali Dehat,
District Bulandshahr, under Sections 420, 406
IPC and Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881.

Appearances for Parti

## Text

_Characters 0–39,929 of 45,108. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39929 for what follows._

8 All. Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
291
the petitioner to circumvent the statutory
appellate procedure. In our view, no proper
explanation has been provided by the
petitioner for non-filing of the appeal
within time and/or non-filing of the writ
petition within the limitation period.

16. The dictum of the Supreme Court
laid down in Singh Enterprises (supra),
Hongo India (P) Ltd. (supra) and Glaxo
Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.
(supra) has been consistently followed by
Supreme Court and various High Courts. In
light of the same, this Court is of the view
that this Court should not indulge the writ
petitioner in condoning the delay as the
present case is neither a case of gross
violation of principles of natural justice nor
patent
illegality.
Furthermore,
writ
jurisdiction can certainly not be exercised
when invoked to undermine or defeat the
application of a statutory regime so as to
render the provision of limitation provided
in the statute otiose. Ergo, this Court
ought not to entertain the present writ
petition and the same deserves to be
rejected in limine.

17. The writ petition, is accordingly,
dismissed, with no order as to cost.

18. We make it clear that the petitioner
shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance
with law and if the petitioner files an
appeal, the order passed by this Court and
the observations herein shall not affect the
decision of the appellate forum.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 291
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
Application U/S 482 No. 1808 of 2025

Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Vimlendu Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the legality of FIR registration
and cognizance under S. 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, and framing of charges
under SS. 420 & 406 IPC, pending before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate. The issue raised was
whether FIR registration by police under S. 138
of the N.I. Act is impermissible in law in view of
the bar contained in S. 142(a) of the Act.

Headnotes
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 420 and 406
- The Negotiable instruments Act, 1981 -
S. 138,142 - Cognizance - Complaint by
payee
or
holder
mandatory
-
FIR
registration impermissible - Police - Power
to investigate under Special Acts - FIR not
maintainable where statute provides for
complaint procedure only - Magistrate's
Duty - Duty to scrutinize FIR and avoid
mechanical cognizance - Directions -
Issuance of comprehensive instructions
for training police and prosecutors.
Held: No case was made out for quashing the
charge sheet against the applicant in respect of
the offences under SS. 420 and 406 IPC - It is
impermissible in law for the police to register an
FIR under S.138 of the N.I. Act - Trial court to
rehear the applicant afresh at the stage of
charge only for SS. 420 & 406 IPC. - Impugned
cognizance and charge orders dated 03.06.2024
and 18.07.2024, insofar as they relate to S.138
of the N.I. Act, are quashed - Directions issued
to the A.D.G. (Prosecution) and A.C.S. (Home)
to circulate a list of Special Acts where FIR
registration is barred; to train Investigating
Officers accordingly - District Judges directed to
sensitize Judicial Officers not to take cognizance
on police reports under such Special Acts - In 38
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Special Acts (referred to in paragraph 17)
besides others, the police are not empowered to
register an FIR, and if inadvertently done, the
same shall be referred to the respective
department or to the competent person to deal
with
the
issue
involved
and
subsequent
investigation by treating the same as an
information or narration of facts - Application
partly
allowed.(Paras
19.2,
20,
2122,23,24,25,26,27,29) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
N. Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas (2018) 13
SCC 663; Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh & Another 2024 SCC
Online SC 2248; Jayant v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 670; Prashant Kumar
Singh v. The State of Jharkhand Cr.M.P.
No.3501 of 2019; In Union of India v. Ashok
Kumar Sharma (2021) 12 SCC 674; Jeewan
Kumar Raut' case (2009) 7 SCC 526; Rasila S
Mehta v. Custodian, Nariman Bhawan Mumbai
(2011)6 SCC 220; Dr. Aparna Singhal v. State
of Haryana Criminal Mise. No. M-421 of
2021 (PHC); Dr. Anant Ram v. State of
Haryana, 2022 SCC Online P&H 2284; Dr.
Brij Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024:
AHC:159207

List of Acts
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973; Indian
Penal Code, 1860
Acts where FIR registration impermissible
(illustrative list): Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881; Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957; PC & PNDT Act, 1994; Consumer
Protection Act, 2019; Environment (Protection)
Act,
1986;
Trade
Marks
Act,
1999;
Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues
Act, 1994; Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace Act, 2013; Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; and others -
total 38 Special Acts.
Acts where FIR registration permissible:
NDPS Act, Arms Act, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, POCSO Act, Prevention of
Corruption Act, IT Act, etc.

List of Keywords
Negotiable Instruments Act - FIR registration
impermissible - Cognizance - Complaint - Special
Acts - Police powers - Magistrate's duty -
Prosecution - Sensitization - Directions -
Compliance
-
Bulandshahr
-
A.D.G.
(Prosecution) - S.S.P. - Quashing of cognizance
- Judicial mind.

Case Arising From
Criminal Case No. 6627 of 2024, titled State v.
Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Anr., arising out of Case
Crime No. 18 of 2024, P.S. Kotwali Dehat,
District Bulandshahr, under Sections 420, 406
IPC and Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicants:
Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Vimlendu Tripathi
Advs. for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Shri Kuldeep Singh Chauhan (A.G.A.
for the State)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vimlendu Tripathi,
learned counsel for the applicants, Shri
Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.
for the State, and perused the material
available on record.

2. The applicant has challenged the
impugned order of framing charge dated
18.7.2024 and cognizance order dated
3.6.2024, passed in Criminal Case No.
6627 of 2024, titled as State v. Sudhir
Kumar Goyal and another, arising out of
Case Crime No.18 of 2024, under Sections
420, 406 IPC and Section 138 of the
Negotiable
Instruments
Act,
1881,
registered at P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District
Bulandshahr, which is pending trial before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bulandshahr.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
the informant booked two plots in Radhika
Enclave, Meerut Road, Bulandshahr, in
January and April 2023, making total
payments of Rs.30,33,100/- through cash
and cheques issued in favour of Mr. Jai
Prakash, and handed over the said cheques
8 All. Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
293
to the applicant Sudhir Kumar Goyal.
However, instead of executing the sale
deed, the applicant allegedly sold the plots
to the third party without knowledge and
consent
of
the
complainant.
Upon
cancellation of the bookings, the applicant
issued four refund cheques in favour of the
complainant,
all
of
which
were
dishonoured, on presentation. Thereafter,
pursuant to a complaint filed by the
opposite
party
no.2/complainant,
the
aforesaid FIR has been registered against
the applicant under section 138 of N.I. Act-
besides other sections of IPC.

4. After registration of FIR, the
Investigating Officer conducted a detailed
investigation and submitted a charge-sheet
against the applicant under Sections 420,
406 IPC, read with Section 138 of N.I. Act.
Upon submission of the charge-sheet, the
learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences and issued summon to the
applicant
by
impugned
order
dated
03.06.2024. Thereafter, by impugned order
dated 18.07.2024, the learned trial court,
having found sufficient grounds, proceeded
to frame charges against the applicant for
the aforesaid offences.

5. Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned
counsel for the applicant submits that the
registration of the First Information Report
and the consequential proceedings initiated
by the police, followed by cognizance
order, passed by the Magistrate, are in clear
violation of the mandate of Section 142 of
the N.I. Act. It is submitted that Section
142 of the N.I. Act prescribes a specific
procedure for initiation of proceedings
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, wherein
it is categorically provided that no court
shall take cognizance of any offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act except upon a written complaint made
by the payee or the holder of the cheque
before the Magistrate. Section 142 of N.I.
Act is reproduced hereinbelow for ready
reference:

"142. Cognizance of offences-(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974)

(a)
No
Court
shall
take
cognizance of any offence punishable under
Section 138 except upon a complaint, in
writing, made by the payee or, as the case
may be, the holder in due course of the
cheque."

6. It is further submitted that the entire
proceedings arising out of the prosecution
case are barred by the provisions of Section
142(a) of the N.I. Act, 1881. In support of
this contention, learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court passed in
N. Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas 1. An
excerpt from the said judgment, relevant to
the present context, has been reproduced
below for ready reference:

*****

"By the nature of the offence
under Section 138 of the Act, the first
ingredient constituting the offence is the
fact that a person drew a cheque. The
identity of the drawer of the cheque is
necessarily required to be known to the
complainant
(payee)
and
needs
investigation and would not normally be in
dispute unless the person who is alleged to
have drawn a cheque disputes that very
fact. The other facts required to be proved
for securing the punishment of the person
who drew a cheque that eventually got
dishonoured is that the payee of the cheque
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
did in fact comply with each one of the
steps contemplated under Section 138 of
THE ACT before initiating prosecution.
Because it is already held by this Court
that failure to comply with any one of the
steps contemplated under Section 138
would not provide "cause of action for
prosecution". Therefore, in the context of a
prosecution under Section 138 the concept
of taking cognizance of the offence but not
the offender is not appropriate. Unless the
complaint contains all the necessary
factual allegations constituting each of the
ingredients of the offence under Section
138, the Court cannot take cognizance of
the offence. Disclosure of the name of the
person drawing the cheque is one of the
factual allegations which a complaint is
required to contain. Otherwise in the
absence of any authority of law to
investigate the offence under Section 138,
there would be no person against whom a
Court can proceed. There cannot be a
prosecution without an accused. The
offence under Section 138 is person
specific.
Therefore,
the
Parliament
declared under Section 142 that the
provisions dealing with taking cognizance
contained in the CrPC should give way to
the procedure prescribed under Section
142. Hence the opening of non-obstante
clause under Section 142. It must also be
remembered that under Section 142 does
not either contemplate a report to the
police or authorise the Court taking
cognizance
to
direct
the
police
to
investigate into the complaint."

*****

7. After hearing Shri Tripathi and
upon perusal of the records, this court vide
order dated 21.01.2025, directed the
Investigating Officer to submit a report
detailing the reasons for registering the FIR
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The
court further directed to supply a copy of
the paper book to the SSP, Bulandshahr, for
his
perusal.
Additionally,
the
SSP,
Bulandshahr, was directed to appear
virtually through video conferencing on the
next date of hearing to assist the court in
this regard, and on merits of the case has
placed reliance upon Delhi Race Club
(1940) Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
& Another2.

8. As the registration of FIR by the
police under Section 138 of N.I. Act is
impermissible in law and some other
Special Acts, which this Court comes
across routinely, therefore, this court with
the idea to sensitize the police officers
about the basics of criminal law with
respect to registration of FIR in cognizable
offences, vide order dated 06.02.2025,
directed the SSP, Bulandshahr, to prepare a
detailed and comprehensive report- in
consultation with the Additional Director
General of Police (Prosecution), Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow, and other concerned
stakeholders- of such Special Acts in which
registration of FIR by police has been made
impermissible and there is a bar on taking
cognizance by the Magistrates on the police
report under such Special Acts. The report
aimed to identify and prepare a list of Acts
under which the power of police of
registration of FIRs is either statutorily
barred or procedurally impermissible, and
to
provide
suggestions
for
ensuring
compliance with the legal framework, thus
preventing the use of unwarranted power of
police under such Special Acts.

9. In compliance with the order dated
6.2.2025, passed by this court a meeting
was convened by the S.S.P. Bulandshahr
with the District Level Officer of the 15
department(s) namely; (i) District Excise
8 All. Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
295
Officer, Bulandshahr, (ii) Drug Inspector,
Bulandshahr,
(iii)
Food
Inspector,
Bulandshahr, (iv) Divisional Director,
Social Forestry Division, Bulandshahr, (v)
District Supply Officer, Bulandshahr, (vi)
Mining Officer, Bulandshahr, (vii) District
Agriculture Officer, Bulandshahr, (viii)
Electricity Department, (ix) Public Works
Department, (x) ARTO, (xi) Medical
Department, Bulandshahr, (xii) Animal
Husbandry Department, Bulandshahr, (xiii)
District
Government Advocate (Civil)
Bulandshahr, (xiv) District Government
Advocate (Criminal), Bulandshahr, and
(xv)
Joint
Director
(Prosecution),
Bulandshahr.

10. Based on the deliberations held
among the aforesaid officers, the SSP,
Bulandshahr filed a preliminary report inter
alia stating that there have been cases
where the constitutional courts have
explicitly ruled regarding absolute bar on
the registration of an FIR under Special
Acts which have provision for bar on
taking cognizance by the Magistrate except
on the filing of a complaint either by the
aggrieved person or by the authorized
officer of the department. However, there
have been instances where the registration
of an FIR has been upheld in such cases in
which upon registering an FIR, the police
officer informed the designated officers of
the concerned department or authority
under the Special Acts to proceed with as a
complaint case. In some cases, an FIR may
be registered, but after completing the
investigation, the police must submit a
report before the concerned department to
proceed further in accordance with law by
treating the report as an information, upon
which the Magistrate may take cognizance.
The police report must be handed over to
the concerned competent person/authorized
officer, as the case may be- which alone is
authorized to file the complaint along with
the
report
before
the
jurisdictional
Magistrate. However, for offences under
the IPC as well as other Special Acts as
may permissible under law, the police can
directly register the FIR and consequent
thereto file the police report before the
court to which the Magistrate may take
cognizance3.

11. It is further submitted by Shri
Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.
that as a result of the said initial interdepartmental
coordination
meeting,
a
consolidated list of 28 Special Acts has
been compiled, identifying those Acts
under which criminal proceedings are to be
instituted
exclusively
by
way
of
a
complaint by competent person/authorized
officer- as the case may be- before the
jurisdictional Magistrate.

11.1 The list of such Special Acts
in which the registration of FIR is
impermissible, and cognizance of offence
could only be taken upon the complaint or
the application- as the case may be- filed
by the aggrieved person and/or authorized
officer by the department, the list inter alia
includes: (i) Protection of Women from
Domestic
Violence
Act,
2005,
(ii)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (iii)
Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957, (iv) Pre-Conception
and
Pre-Natal
Diagnostic
Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994,
(v) Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (vi)
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960, (vii) Child and Adolescent Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986,
(viii) Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981, (ix) Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972, (x) Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, (xi) Import and
Export
(Control)
Act,
1947,
(xii)
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,
(xiii) National Food Security Act, 2013,
(xiv) Trade Marks Act, 1999,
(xv)
Transplantation of Human Organs and
Tissues Act, 1994, (xvi) Sexual Harassment
of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, (xvii)
Water
(Prevention
and
Control
of
Pollution)
Act,
1974,
(xviii)
Cable
Television Networks (Regulation) Act,
1995,
(xix)
The
Foreign
Exchange
Management
Act,
1999,
(xx)
The
Insecticides Act, 1968, (xxi) The Notaries
Act, 1952, (xxii) Insurance Act, 1938,
(xxiii) Sea Customs Act, 1878 (repealed,
now replaced by the Customs Act, 1962),
(xxiv) Antiquities and Art Treasures Act,
1972, (xxv) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
(xxvi) Food Safety and Standards Act,
2006, (xxvii) Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940, and (xxviii) Section 215 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(BNSS). It is made clear that the list is
illustrative and not exhaustive.

11.2 It was further submitted
that this list is intended to serve as a
reference document for the purpose of
guiding
Investigating
Officers
and
Prosecuting Authorities regarding the
appropriate legal procedure under such
Special
Acts-
particularly
where
registration of FIR is not permissible
unless certain pre-conditions such as
prior sanction, departmental complaint,
or approval from a designated authority,
are fulfilled.

11.3 The objective is to prevent
inadvertent or unlawful registration of FIRs
under Special Acts where such initiation is
contrary to the statutory mandate or settled
judicial principles, including those laid
down by the Supreme Court and High
Courts and barred by Special Acts.

11.4 A reliance has been placed
on letter dated 27.2.2025 sent by Senior
Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr,
whereby the training of Station House
Officers/Investigators through workshops
shall be made mandatory for upgradation of
their professional skill regarding not
registering the FIR under the Special Acts
mentioned in the list prepared by the
department, and to direct the Investigating
Officers, in such pending cases in which
FIR has been registered under the said
Acts, though not permissible, instead of
submitting a charge sheet under the Act, a
report may be submitted before the
concerned department for filing a separate
complaint
through
the
designated/
authorised officer.

11.5
Consequently,
the
Additional Director General (Prosecution),
U.P. through the Additional Director
(Law), Directorate of Prosecution, U.P.,
Lucknow issued instructions to various
training institutes of the state/all Police
Commissioners/ Senior Superintendents of
Police/
Superintendents
of
Police
to
organize training programs in the above
regard
and
train
all
Investigating
Officers/Police personnel accordingly.

12. On the request of the C.O.,
Bulandshahr, who had appeared in person
on 28.02.2025, a week's time was further
granted to finalize a comprehensive list of
such Special Acts where the police cannot
register FIR straight away, and in such
Acts, case can be filed only by the
complainant or authorized officer of the
department, to have wider consultation
with senior most prosecutors of the
department in this regard. Accordingly, to
facilitate the police, the Additional Director
General (Prosecution), was directed to
provide a list of the most experienced
8 All. Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
297
prosecutors,
who
are
suitable
for
conducting the aforesaid exercise, to the
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Bulandshahr, to his satisfaction.

13. In compliance thereof names of, (i)
Additional Director (Prosecution), Bareilly,
(ii)
Joint
Director
(Prosecution),
Moradabad,
(iii)
Joint
Director
(Prosecution), Bulandshahr, (iv) Senior
Prosecution
Officer,
Dr.
Bhimrao
Ambedkar Police Academy, Moradabad,
and (v) Prosecution Officer, Shamli were
provided by the Directorate of Prosecution,
Lucknow. Who, upon wider consultation,
prepared a report on 32 Special Acts along
with certain sections of BNSS, 2023 in
which there is no provision of registration
of FIR by police but there is a provision for
filing a complaint before the jurisdictional
Magistrate by the complainant/authorized
officer of the department, as the case may
be, a reference is also invited to the detailed
discussion about the legal position based on
a catena of judgements4 passed by the
Supreme Court as well as various High
Courts in this regard, also reflected in the
instructions provided by the police.

13.1
The
instructions
also
contained a reference to a judgement
passed by this court in Dr. Brij Pal Singh
v. State of Uttar Pradesh5, examined
whether the police are empowered to
register an FIR and initiate proceedings in
cases
governed
by
Special
Acts,
particularly
concerning
cases
where
cognizance by the court of Magistrate are
permissible upon complaint only. In this
case, the primary issue was whether the
police had the authority to investigate and
file a police report regarding alleged
offences under the PC & PNDT Act
without a prior complaint from the
appropriate authority. The court held that
the cognizance order, FIR, and charge sheet
deserved to be quashed, as the Magistrate
was not competent to take cognizance of a
charge sheet or police report without the
requisite complaint from the authorized
officer under the PC & PNDT Act. In its
observation, the court granted leave to
approach the Supreme Court for a final
decision on the interplay between the CrPC
and the PC & PNDT Act concerning
registration of FIR and investigation. The
court further observed, which is relevant
for the purpose of the issue at hand, as
follows:

"2.1 That it agrees with the
landmark decision of the Apex Court in
Jeewan Kumar Raut, wherein the Apex
Court, while dealing with the identical
provisions of the Transplantation of Human
Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 Act, has
taken a categorical view that the police
report is inconsequential and the FIR for
the offence under the provisions of the
TOHO Act cannot be entertained, if any
such information is received in writing, it is
the duty of the police officer to report it to
the Appropriate Authority, under the Act
only, who can investigate the matter and
file a complaint on conclusion of the
investigation. The aforesald view, finds
approval in the judgment of Ashok Kumar
Sharma", which has dealt with the
categorically
provisions
of
Code
of
Criminal Procedure as well as the special
Act.

2.2 That wherever the special law
provides that the complaints can be lodged
or the prosecution can be initiated only by
the specified persons under such special
law, the police officers are debarred from
registering the FIR and investigating the
matter as in almost all the special laws the
power to investigate under the Special Acts
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been given to the specified officers
under such special laws. Therefore, in the
considered opinion of this Court, in view of
the Bar created under section 28 of the PC
& PNDT Act, for any offence under the Act,
no person is authorized to register the FIR
Therefore, the registration of the FIR and
investigation
thereof
is
categorically
barred... Therefore, police officers are
debarred from registering the FIR and
investigating the matter."

13.2 It is further contained in the
written
instructions
that
various
constitutional courts have delivered varied
judgments,
and
that
is
why
an
inconsistency persists in the practical
application of the law as on date. The
compilation provided by the police in the
form of a letter further elaborates through a
comparative analysis chart explaining as to
how, on similar issues and laws, different
outcomes have been arrived at by various
constitutional courts. In some states, FIRs
have been permitted to be registered for
offences qualified by "bar in taking
cognizance by courts" under the Cr.P.C.
(viz. sections 195, 198 and 199) or Special
Laws (a term used in the letter addressed
by SSP to denote those special legislations
whereunder a distinct provision/clause is
provided that contains a "bar to take
cognizance" clause while in other states,
such registration of FIR is impermissible.
On certain occasions, to arrive at definitive
conclusion, the matter has been referred to
the constitutional court as is observed in
Dr. Brij Pal Singh (supra) of this court, and
has been observed later in the Jayant' case
(supra) of the Supreme Court. However, such
references have been limited to the specific
legislation in question, without addressing the
issue comprehensively for all Acts containing
a similar "bar to take cognizance" clause.
Given the aforesaid discussion, it appears
imperative and relevant to establish a final
and
uniform
legal
position
on
the
interpretation and application of all such
legislation containing similar or identical
provisions/clauses. A list of most of such
legislations - routinely used- has been
prepared by the Directorate of Prosecution
for police and prosecutors.

14. The initial compilation placed before
the court may be useful for academic
reference, for sure a well thought provoking
endeavour has been made by the police in
collaboration
with
the
Directorate
of
Prosecution, however, the necessary clarity
required by the Station House Officers
(SHOs) for the registration of FIRs vis-a-vis
not registration of FIR under such Special
Acts has not been provided therein. It is
observed that, had SHO's possessed adequate
knowledge in this regard, the instances
involving unauthorised registration of FIRs
by the police would not have been brought
before this court.

15. In compliance with the order dated
06.03.2025, and pursuant to Letter No. Five1-55-2024/1058/2024
dated
11.03.2025,
issued by the Director General (Prosecution),
Directorate of Prosecution, Lucknow, again a
meeting
was
convened
through video
conferencing on 11.03.2025. The meeting
involved
experienced
Prosecutors
and
District Government Advocates (Criminal)
and focused on rather preparation of a
comprehensive list of such Special Acts in
which there is no provision for registration of
First Information Report (FIR) by the police,
and where instead the process of filing a
complaint has been prescribed, vis-a-vis
Special Acts which contain provisions for the
registration of an FIR.

16. The following officers participated
in
the
aforementioned
meeting:
(i)
8 All. Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
299
Additional
Director
(Prosecution),
Ayodhya Region, (ii) Additional Director
(Prosecution),
Moradabad
Region,
Moradabad,
(iii)
Additional
Director
(Prosecution), Bareilly Region, Bareilly,
(iv) Additional Director (Prosecution),
Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur, (v) Joint
Director (Prosecution), Moradabad, (vi)
Joint Director (Prosecution), Lucknow
Bench, of Allahabad High Court, (vii) Joint
Director (Prosecution), Allahabad, (viii)
Joint
Director
(Prosecution),
Gautam
Buddh
Nagar,
(ix)
Joint
Director
(Prosecution),
Rampur,
(x)
District
Government
Advocate
(Criminal),
Allahabad,
(xi)
District
Government
Advocate (Criminal), Muzaffarnagar, (xii)
District Government Advocate (Criminal),
Meerut,
(xiii)
District
Government
Advocate
(Criminal),
Kasganj,
(xiv)
District Government Advocate (Criminal),
Hathras,
(xv)
Additional
District
Government
Advocate
(Criminal),
Bulandshahr, (xvi) District Government
Advocate (Civil), Muzaffarnagar, (xvii)
Spcial Public Prosecutor, Bulandshahr (two
participants), (xviii) Prosecution Officer,
Shamli,

17. After detailed deliberation through
video conferencing with the above-named
officers/Government Advocates nominated
by
the
Additional
Director
General
(Prosecution), it was concluded that the
following are the Special Acts amongst
others under which there is a procedure to
file a complaint before the jurisdictional
magistrate by the competent person or the
authorised officer by the department - as
the case may be, and such Acts includes: (i)
Domestic Violence (Women Protection)
Act, 2005, (ii) Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, (iii) Mines and Minerals Act, 1957,
(iv)
Pre-Conception
and
Pre-Natal
Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act,
1994, (v) Consumer Protection Act, 2019,
(vi) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1871, (vii) Child Labour (Prohibition and
Regulation) Act, 1986, (viii) Air Pollution
Prevention and Control Act, (ix) Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972, (x) Environment
Protection Act, 1986, (xi) The Import and
Export
(Control)
Act,
1947,
(xii)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,
(xiii) National Food Security Act, 2013,
(xiv) Trade Marks Act, 1999,
(xv)
Transplantation of Human Organs and
Tissues Act, 1994, (xvi) Sexual Harassment
of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition, and Redressal Act, 2013, (xvii)
Water Pollution Prevention and Control
Act,
1974,
(xviii)
Cable
Television
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, (xix)
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999,
(xx) Insecticide Act, 1968, (xxi) Notaries
Act 1952, (xxii) Insurance Act, 1938,
(xxiii) The Antiquities and art treasures act
1972, (xxiv) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
(xxv) Food Safety Act, 2006, (xxvi) The
Disaster Management Act, 2005, (xxvii)
The National Medical Commission Act,
2019, (xxviii) The Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane
(Regulation and Purchase) Act, 1953,
(xxix) Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act,
2005, (xxx) The Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961, (xxxi) Standards of Weights and
Meassures Act, 1976.

17.1 Whereas the following are
the Special Acts amongst others which
contains the provision for registration of
FIR by police. Such Special Acts includes;
(i) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act,
(ii) Arms Act, (iii) Essential Commodities
Act, (iv) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1983,
(v) Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, (vi) Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, (vii)
Explosive Act 1884, (viii) Explosive
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Substances Act 1908, (ix) Criminal Law
Amendment Act 1932, (x) The Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act
1955, (xi) The Muslim Women (Protection
of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019, (xii)
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, (xiii)
Information Technology Act 2000, (xiv)
The Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act
1970, (xv) United Provinces Excise Act,
(xvi) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) 1956,
(xvii) The Cinematograph Act, (xviii) The
Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act 1960,
(xix) Copyright Act 1957, (xx) Public
Gambling Act 1867, (xxi) The Prevention
of Damage to Public Property Act 1984,
(xxii) The Representation of the People Act
1951, (xxiii) The Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act 1967, (xxiv) The Uttar
Pradesh Protection of Trees Act 1976, (xxv)
The Uttar Pradesh Ragging in Educational
Institutions Act 2010, (xxvi) The Uttar
Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of
Unfair Means) Act 2024, (xxvii) The Uttar
Pradesh Electric Wire and Transformers
(Prevention and Punishment of theft) Act
1976, (xxviii) The Weapons of Mass
Destruction and their Delivery System
(Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Act
2002, (xxix) Coinage Act 2011, (xxx) The
Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse)
Act 1988, (xxxi) The Small Coin (Offences)
1971, (xxxii) The Dowry Prohibition Act
1961, (xxxiii) The Drugs and Magic
Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act
1954, (xxxiv) The Prize Chits and Money
Orculation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978,
(xxxv) The Places of Worship (Special
Provisions) Act 1991, (xxxvi) Indecent
Representation of Women Prohibition Act
1986, (xxxvii) The Lotteries (Regulation) Act
1998, (xxxviii) Passport Act 1967, (xxxix)
The Chits Fund Act 1982.

18. It has also been apprised to this
court by the learned counsel for the
applicant that the Investigating Officer has
filed an application under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Bulandshahr,
for
seeking
further investigation in the FIR No. 663 of
2023 with an ulterior motive to cure the
illegality committed by police. Apparently,
this Court observes that there is no such
mala fide on the part of the Police to move
such an application for further investigation
as has been prima- facie reflected, in the
given facts. The investigation or further
investigation is the sole prerogative of the
police and cannot be scuttled under the
inherent jurisdiction of this court, abruptly.

19. Reverting to the merits of the case,
the prosecution alleges that the informant
had booked two plots with the applicant
and paid the entire sale consideration.
However, instead of executing the sale
deed in favour of the complainant, the
applicant sold the said plots to a third party
without
his
consent
and
knowledge.
Subsequently, the applicant issued four
refund
cheques
in
favour
of
the
complainant with the intention to cheat
him, all of which were dishonoured upon
presentation.

19.1 Upon perusal of the FIR and
the incriminating material annexed with the
charge sheet, this Court is of the view that
no case has been made out for quashing the
charge sheet against the applicant in respect
of the offences under Sections 420 and 406
IPC.

19.2 As regards the submission of
Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for
the applicant, in relation to the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the Court finds legal merit
in the contention. Accordingly, based on
the above deliberations and the legal
8 All. Sudhir Kumar Goyal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
301
position
discussed,
the
impugned
cognizance and order on charge dated
3.6.2024 & 18.7.2024 respectively, passed by
the
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Bulandshahr, is hereby quashed with the
direction to the trial court to hear the
applicant afresh again at the point of charge
with respect to the offences under Sections
420 and 406 IPC, it shall remain open for the
applicant to raise all permissible contentions
at the stage of framing of charge, whereupon
the trial court shall proceed in accordance
with law after considering the same. The
observations made herein regarding the
offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC
shall have no bearing on the proceedings
before the trial court. The trial court may
issue a fresh cognizance order after due
application of judicial mind.

20. In view of the aforesaid, the instant
application stands partly allowed.

DIRECTIONS

21. Registrar (Compliance) is hereby
directed to forwarded a copy of this order
to; (i) ACS (Home) for his record,
reference,
and
necessary
action,
(ii)
Additional Director General (Prosecution)
to issue fresh directions to police through
Director General of Police, and all Joint
Directors (Prosecution) with a fresh list of
such Special Acts as may be prepared, and
(iii) Additional Director General, Dr.
Bheem Rao Ambedkar Police Academy,
Moradabad for incorporating in the training
schedule.

21.1 A copy of the letter dated
27.02.2025, 05.03.2025 and 11.03.2025
issued by SSP Bulandshahr be sent to the
Additional Director General (Prosecution),
Lucknow, for their record and reference to
issue a fresh list, as aforesaid directed.

21.2 A copy of this order be
forwarded
to
the
Chief
Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, to issue
necessary directions to the respective
departments in accordance with the terms
of this order in consultation with the
Directorate of Prosecution, Lucknow.

22. There is yet another dimension to
the case at hand, as earlier noted, where the
police, as aforesaid discussed, have failed
to comply with the basic tenets of criminal
jurisprudence- namely, prompt delivery of
the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate, and
proper and fair conduct of investigation-
the first duty rests upon the learned
Magistrate to take note of such illegality or
irregularity,
and
apprise
the
police
accordingly, and, if necessary, summon the
Investigating Officer forthwith. This duty
arises immediately upon receipt of the FIR,
which, as a matter of course, reaches the
court
within
twenty-four
hours
of
registration of FIR.

23. It is, however, noticed with
concern that orders taking cognizance are,
in many instances, passed mechanically
and in routine, without application of
judicial mind to the material gathered
during investigation. Such casual exercise
of jurisdiction defeats the very purpose of
judicial scrutiny at the threshold and allows
defective
proceedings
to
progress
unchecked,
thereby
necessitating
intervention by this Court at a later stage.

24. The Magistrate, being vested with
adequate powers and are professionally
trained to oversee the investigative process,
bears a higher responsibility to ensure that
the investigation conforms to law. Failure
to discharge this responsibility- by ignoring
patent illegalities at the stage of receiving
the
FIR
and
mechanically
taking
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cognizance- inevitably burdens the High
Court with avoidable and protracted
litigation from the stage of registration of
FIR until the framing of charges.

25. In essence, it can be concluded that
a copy of FIR is forwarded to the nearest
magistrate
within
24
hours
of
the
registration of the crime for the perusal of
the magistrate; with the idea to bring the
occurrence of the offence and subsequent
proceedings to the knowledge of the
magistrate to check illegality or false
implication by the police, if any, but
unfortunately
the
learned
magistrate
remains oblivious of their duty and
responsibility in this regard, it unfortunate.

FURTHER DIRECTIONS

26. Therefore, directions are issued
forthwith to the following manner.

27. All the learned District Judges to
sensitize the learned Judges of the district
not to take cognizance on the police report
filed in contravention of the provisions of
Special Acts referred herein above, or
otherwise where there is a specific bar for a
court to take cognizance of any offence
under the Special Acts except on a
complaint made by the officer authorized
and/or any person competent to file a
complaint
before
the
jurisdictional
Magistrate in a manner prescribed by the
respective Special Acts. The learned Judges
are further required to sensitize that
registration
of
FIR
as
a
serious
repercussion in criminal jurisprudence, if
the
illegality
with
respect
to
impermissiblity of registration of FIR is
checked at initial stage (within 24 hours of
its registration), it would save lot of
resources and time of the High Court
besides harassment to the aggrieved person.

28.