# Tej Singh Verma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 383
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10216 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tej-singh-verma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47108
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power , Section 2(d) - complaint , Section
155 - Information as to non - cognizable
cases and investigation of such cases -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 &
392 - charge sheet submitted by police in
non-cognizable offence after investigation
made in pursuance of Magistrate order
stands at par with charge sheet submitted
by
police
in
cognizable
offence
-
Explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. is
not applicable where charge sheet has
been
submitted
by
police
in
noncognizable
offence
after
investigation
made in pursuance of order passed by
Magistrate.(Para -12 )
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Police submitted charge sheet after investigation
- contention - in non-cognizable case charge
sheet submitted by police after investigation
shall be deemed to be complaint under section
2(d) of Cr.P.C. - cognizance taken by
Magistrate is against law - hence application
under 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing the chargesheet as well as cognizance order.

HELD:- Submission of charge sheet by police in
non-cognizable
offence
without
order
of
Magistrate under section 155(2) Cr.P.C. , held to
be complaint under section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. .
Impugned order (cognizance order) dated
24.07.2019 quashed. Matter remanded back
before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to
pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh after
giving opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned.(Para - 14,15)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

7 All. Tej Singh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
383
charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, the
learned Court below after applying its legal
mind took cognizance of the offence. While
taking
cognizance
of
the
offence,
Magistrate or Court concerned is not
obliged to give detailed reasons for its
satisfaction. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Bhushan Kumar Versus State (NCT of
Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424, in this regard
has held as under:-

11.
In
Chief
Enforcement
Officer Vrs. Videocon International Ltd.
(SCC p. 499, para 19) the expression
"cognizance" was explained by this
Court "as it merely means 'become
aware of' and when used with reference
to a court or a Judge, it connotes 'to
take notice of judicially'. It indicates the
point when a court or a Magistrate takes
judicial notice of an offence with a view
to initiating proceedings in respect of
such
offence
said
to
have
been
committed by someone. It is entirely a
different
thing
from
initiation
of
proceedings; rather it is the condition
precedent
to
the
initiation
of
proceedings by the Magistrate or the
Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and
not of persons. Under Section 190 of the
Code, it is the application of judicial
mind to the averments in the complaint
that constitutes cognizance. At this
stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied
whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding and not whether there is
sufficient
ground
for
conviction.
Whether the evidence is adequate for
supporting
the
conviction
can
be
determined only at the trial and not at
the stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient
ground
for
proceeding
then
the
Magistrate is empowered for issuance of
process under Section 204 of the Code."

15. In the light of the above
discussions, there remains no valid ground
for interference in the matter to quash the
charge sheet as well as summoning order.

16. This petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
deserves
dismissal
and
is
accordingly dismissed.
----------

(2021)07ILR A383
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10216 of 2021

Tej Singh Verma & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rabindra Bahadur Singh

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

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power , Section 2(d) - complaint , Section
155 - Information as to non - cognizable
cases and investigation of such cases -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 &
392 - charge sheet submitted by police in
non-cognizable offence after investigation
made in pursuance of Magistrate order
stands at par with charge sheet submitted
by
police
in
cognizable
offence
-
Explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. is
not applicable where charge sheet has
been
submitted
by
police
in
noncognizable
offence
after
investigation
made in pursuance of order passed by
Magistrate.(Para -12 )
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Police submitted charge sheet after investigation
- contention - in non-cognizable case charge
sheet submitted by police after investigation
shall be deemed to be complaint under section
2(d) of Cr.P.C. - cognizance taken by
Magistrate is against law - hence application
under 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing the chargesheet as well as cognizance order.

HELD:- Submission of charge sheet by police in
non-cognizable
offence
without
order
of
Magistrate under section 155(2) Cr.P.C. , held to
be complaint under section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. .
Impugned order (cognizance order) dated
24.07.2019 quashed. Matter remanded back
before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to
pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh after
giving opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned.(Para - 14,15)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs St. of U.P. &
anr., 2007(9) ADJ 478

2. Ghansyam Dubey @ Litile & ors. Vs St. of
U.P. & anr., 2013(4) ADJ 474

3. Alok Kumar Shukla Vs St. of U.P. & anr., Appl.
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.42698 of 2013

4. Budhi Ram & 3 ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
Appl. u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.42082 of 2014

5. Keshab Lal Thakur Vs St. of Bihar, (1996) 11
S.C.C. 55)

6. Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs St. of U.P. &
anr., 2007(9) ADJ 478

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants as well as perused application
moved under section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. By filing this application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. applicants have prayed to
quash the charge-sheet No.69 of 2018 dated
05.05.2018 as well as cognizance order dated
24.07.2019 in Criminal Case No.125 of 2019
(Case Crime No.80 of 2018) under Section
323 I.P.C., Police Station Lohamandi,
District Agra pending in the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 11th
Agra.

3. Learned counsel for applicants
contended that an F.I.R. No.0080 of 2018,
under Sections 323 and 392 I.P.C. has been
registered in Police Station Lohamandi in
which police has submitted charge sheet after
investigation. Learned counsel for applicants
contended that in non-cognizable case charge
sheet submitted by police after investigation
shall be deemed to be complaint under
section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, cognizance
taken by Magistrate is against law.

4. Learned counsel for applicants
placed reliance upon following judgments of
this Court:

1. 2007(9) ADJ 478 Allahabad
High Court, Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma
Vs. State of U.P. and another.

2. 2013(4) ADJ 474 Allahabad
High Court, Ghansyam Dubey @ Litile
and others Vs. State of U.P. and another.

3. Judgment and order dated
26.11.2013 passed by Hon'ble Single
Judge of this Court in Application u/s
482 Cr.P.C. No.42698 of 2013 (Alok
Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.p. and
another).

4. Judgment and order dated
30.10.2014 passed by Hon'ble Single
Judge of this Court in Application u/s
482 Cr.P.C. No.42082 of 2014 (Budhi
Ram and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and
another).

5. I have considered the submission
made by learned counsel for applicants.
7 All. Tej Singh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
385

6. The applicants are named in F.I.R.
No.0080 of 2018, under Sections 323 and
392 I.P.C. Investigation has been made by
police in compliance of Magistrate order
passed under section 155(2) Cr.P.C. as is
apparent from charge sheet submitted by
police.

7. Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. defines
complaint which is as follows:

"complaint"
means
any
allegation made orally or in writing to a
Magistrate, with a view to his taking
action under this Code, that some person,
whether
known
or
unknown,
has
committed an offence, but does not
include a police report".

8. Explanation added to Section
2(d) is as follows-

"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;

9. Reading of explanation added to
Section 2(d) shows that this explanation
speaks about cases where police has
investigated
a
cognizable
case
but
investigation made discloses a noncognizable offence.

10. In the case of Keshab Lal
Thakur Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 11
S.C.C. 55) Hon'ble Apex Court has
already held that explanation to Section
2(d) of the Code covers only those cases
where the police initiates investigation
into a cognizable offence but the
offence is turned into a non cognizable
offence.

11. It is relevant at this juncture to
go through provisions of Section 155(2)
and (3) of Criminal Procedure Code
which are reproduced below:-

Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.

"No
police
officer
shall
investigate a non-cognizable case without
the order of a Magistrate having power to
try such case or commit the case for
trial."

Section 155(3) Cr.P.C.

"Any police officer receiving
such order may exercise the same powers
in respect of the investigation (except the
power to arrest without warrant) as an
officer in charge of a police station may
exercise in a cognizable case."

12. It is abundantly clear from above
provisions of Section 155(2) and 155(3)
Cr.P.C. that police is competent to
investigate non cognizable offence with
order
of
Magistrate
and
in
such
investigation the police officer receiving
order of investigation may exercise same
powers in respect of the investigation
(except the power to arrest without
warrant) as an officer in charge of a police
station may exercise in a cognizable case.
Thus is clear that charge sheet submitted by
police in non-cognizable offence after
investigation
made
in
pursuance
of
Magistrate order stands at par with charge
sheet submitted by police in cognizable
offence. Therefore Explanation to Section
2(d) of Cr.P.C. is not applicable where
charge sheet has been submitted by police
in
non-cognizable
offence
after
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation made in pursuance of order
passed by Magistrate.

13. In the case of 2007(9) ADJ 478
Allahabad High Court, Dr. Rakesh
Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and
another the case was originally registered
under sections 307 I.P.C. and after
investigation
non-cognizable
offence
punishable under section 504 I.P.C. was
found. Therefore, charge sheet submitted
for offence punishable under section 504
I.P.C. was held to be complainant under
section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.

14. In the case of Alok Kumar
Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and another
mentioned above police submitted charge
sheet in non-cognizable offence without
order of Magistrate under section 155(2)
Cr.P.C. Therefore charge sheet submitted
by police was held to be complaint under
section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.

15. In view of the discussions made
above,
the
impugned
order
dated
24.07.2019 is hereby quashed. The matter
is remanded back before the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, 11th Agra, to
pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh
after giving opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned.

16. With these observations and
directions,
the
application
is
finally
disposed of.
----------

(2021)07ILR A386
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13181 of 2020

Tarun Jain ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, Sri Navin
Chandra Srivastava

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

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power
,
Section
41A
-

notice
of
appearance before police officer, Section
144 - Power to issue order in urgent cases
of nuisance or apprehended danger ,
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 182 -
false information with intent to cause
public servant to use his lawful power to
the injury of another person , Section188 -
Disobedience to order duly promulgated
by
public
servant
,
Section
271-
Disobedience to quarantine rule - An
unfair, biased, one-sided investigation is
no investigation in the eyes of law, and
vitiates the resultant charge-sheet . (Para
- 8)

Tweet by applicant - maid servants and courier
boys entering the society, where the applicant
resides - without sanitizing themselves -
maintenance staff have not provided for
sanitizers - Sub-Inspector (Informant) lodged a
First Information Report - orders under Section
144 of the Code promulgated in district - looking
to
Corona
Virus
(CoViD-19)
pandemic
-
applicant, by his tweet spread a rumour,
violating
prohibitory
order
-
police
after
investigation submitted impugned Charge-sheet
- Magistrate took cognizance of offence - issued
summons - hence application.

HELD:-
Impugned prosecution not only fails
to disclose a cognizable case against the
applicant, but is one that is a reckless abuse of
the process of Court. Duty of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of
process of Court. Cases of this kind ought to be
scuttled, whenever and wherever it comes to