# Umme Farva v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 297
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 12575 of 2025
- **Bench:** Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/umme-farva-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53989
- **Pages:** 26

## Text

_Characters 0–39,530 of 78,145. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39530 for what follows._

1 All. Umme Farva Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
297
complaint the applicant was caught red handed on 31.10.2009 and from the possession of the
applicant an amount to the tune of Rs.70,000/- (tainted notes) was recovered.

(I) Other witnesses in Criminal Case No. 17 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. RC
No.RC0062009A0033, under Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, were Santosh Kumar Saraogi, Senior
Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Lucknow and Saurav Paul, Agriculture Officer,
Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Lucknow (witnesses of recovered amount i.e. Rs.70,000/-
from the possession of the applicant on 31.10.2009).

(J) In 'First Case' arising out of Case Crime No.RC0062009A0033, under Section 13 (1)(d) of
PC Act, Ajay Kumar Sharma was also an accused and he has been acquitted by the trial court.

(K) The Second Case/Case-in-Issue is only against the applicant.

(L) The time period, set of accused of above indicated both the offences are not same.

(M) The evidence as also the witnesses in both the cases are not same. [See para 10 (ix) of this
judgment]

17. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
---------
(2026) 1 ILRA 297
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 12575 of 2025

Umme Farva ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the learned Judicial Magistrate, in respect of non-cognizable offences under Ss 504
and 507 I.P.C., could take cognizance under S 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. treating the police report as a state case,
without converting the same into a complaint under S 2(d) Explanation Cr.P.C. (corresponding S 2(1)(h)
Explanation BNSS) and without affording opportunity of hearing under S 223 first proviso BNSS. (Paras 23-31,
42)

Headnotes
Criminal Procedure - Non-cognizable offence - Ss 504 and 507 I.P.C. - Punishable up to two
years - Summons case - Registration of F.I.R. instead of N.C.R. - Improper - Police report in noncognizable case - To be treated as complaint under S 2(d) Explanation Cr.P.C. - Magistrate
required to take cognizance under S 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. - Not under S 190(1)(b) - Protest petition
- If fulfilling requirements of complaint - Magistrate may treat as complaint - Procedure under Ss
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. applicable - Final Report (Closure Report) - If submitted exonerating
accused - I.O. under obligation to file complaint under Ss 177 and 182 IPC (corresponding Ss
212 and 217 BNS) - S 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. compliance mandatory - Police Regulations - Mandatory
registration of F.I.R. or N.C.R. - Paragraphs 97, 102, and 103 of U.P. Police Regulations - Failure
to follow procedure violates Article 21Cognizance - Must be in accordance with procedure
established by law - BNSS applicability - Cognizance on pending investigation on or after
01.07.2024 to be taken as per BNSS. (E-7)

Held: The Judicial Magistrate "erroneously passed cognizance-cum-summoning order under S 506 and 507
IPC for a non-cognizable offence in derogation of the provisions of Cr.P.C." and "neither converted the police
report disclosing 'non cognizable offence' into 'complaint' as per the provision of Explanation to S 2(d) of
Cr.P.C. nor took cognizance under S 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C." but "took cognizance under S 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and
summoned the applicant without affording him an opportunity of hearing provided under First Proviso of S
223 BNSS" - The impugned cognizance-cum-summoning order dated 23.10.2024 is quashed and set aside -
Matter remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing
opportunity of hearing to the accused - Judicial Magistrates/Courts directed that in case final report/closure
report is submitted in favour of accused, written complaint under S 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. (corresponding S
215(1)(a) BNSS) for offences under Ss 177 and 182 IPC (corresponding Ss 212 and 217 BNS) must also be
filed. (Paras 42, 44, 45 - 48)

Case Law Cited
State of Punjab vs. Raj Singh and another, (1998) 2 SCC 391; Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police
and Another, (1985) 2 SCC 537; Vishnu Kumar Tiwari, (2019) 8 SCC 27; Mukhtar Zaidi v. The State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2024) 4 S.C.R. 655; Deepu and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2024) 8 ILRA
903; Prempal and others v. State of U.P. and another, Application U/S 528 BNSS No.1624 of 2025

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Indian Penal Code, 1860;
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Non-cognizable offence; Police report; Final report; Closure report; Protest petition; Cognizance; S 2(d)
Explanation; S 190(1)(a); S 190(1)(b); S 195(1)(a); S 223 BNSS; Article 21; Summons case; Abuse of
process; Complaint case.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION:
Application
U/S
528 BNSS
No.
12575
of
2025
-
Challenge
to
cognizance/summoning order dated 23.10.2024 in Misc. Case No. 750/12/2024 arising out of Case Crime No.
1004/2023, Police Station-Kwarsi, District-Aligarh.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mr. Satish Kumar Dubey, Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey
Advs. for the Respondents:
Mr. Najam Uz Zaman Khan, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Najam Uz Zaman Khan, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and
Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
1 All. Umme Farva Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
299

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed the instant application under
Section 528 BNSS (Corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) with the relief which has been mentioned
in the prayer clause of the application.

3. The relief which has been mentioned in the application is delineated below:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to quash the impugned Cognizance/summoning order dated 23.10.2024 including the
entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 750/12//2024 (Dr. Mahmood Alam Khan vs. Umme Farva
and others) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh arising out of Case Crime
No. 1004/2023, Under Sections 506, 507 IPC registered at Police Station-Kwarsi, DistrictAligarh."

4. The brief facts of this case as per the First Information Report is that the
Informant/O.P. no.2 was working as a Research Professor in the year 2020 at Hanyang University,
Seoul. Wife of informant (i.e. present applicant) was living in a live-in-relationship with one Afzan
Khan, a resident of Chongiu University, Korea. When the informant came to know about this
relationship, he complained to Korea Police on the one hand and also took exception to his wife,
then she took divorce from the informant and as per Sharia, their relationship ended. In order to
save the future and career of his elder child, the informant left his job and filed a case for
guardianship in the Family Court, Aligarh under the Guardians and Wards Act on 05.02.2021,
which is still pending. Further allegation in the FIR is that, wife of the informant and her live-in
partner are using facebook for defaming the informant and his daughter by uttering unwarranted,
uncalled for and filthy language towards them. The accused have also threatened the informant, not
to come or live in India, otherwise he would be eliminated.

5. The opposite party No. 2 (Husband) lodge First Information Report as Case Crime No.1004
of 2023 under section 504, 507 IPC, Police Station-Kwarsi, District-Aligarh against the applicantaccused (wife).

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who happens to be wife of
O.P. no.2, has never committed any offence, as alleged against her in the FIR, but she has been
implicated in this case, as well as other cases due to malafide intention, just to harass her and no
reason. He submits that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with O.P. no.2 according to
Islamic rites and rituals on 14.04.2008 and just thereafter, O.P. no.2 has started harassing her and
she was also subjected to various kinds of cruelty. He next submits that, even after birth of a son,
within the wedlock, even then the behaviour of O.P. no.2 did not improve, so the applicant-wife
was not happy with the husband i.e. O.P. no. 2 . He submits, that O.P. no.2 even ousted the
applicant from her in-laws house, so she was left with no choice, but to reside in her parental house.
He submits that, when the applicant started living at her parental home, the O.P. no.2 has filed
several complaints against her, on the basis of false allegations and the present criminal
proceedings is also outcome of one of those cases. He submits that during course of investigation,
when no evidence was found showing involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime, the
concerned Investigating Officer submitted final report (closure report) on 19.06.2024 before
concerned Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, O.P. no.2 filed a protest petition on 22.10.2024 and the
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
concerned Magistrate allowed the protest petition and rejected the final report dated 19.06.2024 and
took cognizance under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and proceeded as State case, vide order dated
23.10.2024, under section 504, 507 IPC, which has been challenged along with the entire
proceedings of the case in this application. He submits that the learned Magistrate has failed to
appreciate the evidence collected during course of investigation in its right perspective and has
passed the cognizance-cum-summoning order, in an arbitrary manner and against the provision of
law, which is liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. no.2 submits that, there is no
illegality or infirmity in the cognizance-cum-summoning order passed by learned Magistrate and
warrants no interference by this Court. He submits that O.P. no.2 has filed protest petition against
the final report submitted by the concerned I.O. in the matter and the learned Magistrate, after
appreciation of evidence collected during the course of investigation, has found, that a prima facie
case is made out against the applicant and has passed the said order, which suffers from no
illegality or impropriety in any manner whatsoever.

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate has adopted the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and argued more or less on the similar lines. He further submits that
the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order after properly appreciating the evidence
collected during the investigation and hence no interference is required by this Court in the ongoing
criminal proceedings against the applicant.

9. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of both sides and perused the entire record, and
took into consideration the provision of law as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and High
Courts.

10. It has come on record that the O.P. No. 2, husband of the applicant, gave information to
the police, regarding the incident dated 28.09.2023. The Station House Officer (S.H.O.) of Police
Station- Kwarsi, District- Aligarh registered the First Information Report on 28.09.2023, as Case
Crime No. 1004/2023, under Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C. (Corresponding Sections 352 and 351(4)
BNS).

11. The law provides that under Section 504 I.P.C., the maximum imprisonment is two years
or fine or both, which is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate. So far as, Section
507 I.P.C. is concerned, that is also non-cognizable, bailable and triable by the First Class
Magistrate. In both sections, the punishment is upto two years, therefore, it is a summons case
rather than a warrant case. The S.H.O. of the police station, rather than treating it as non-cognizable
report under Section 155 Cr.P.C., (Corresponding Section 174 BNSS) registered as First
Information Report (F.I.R.) under Section 154 Cr.P.C., (Corresponding Section 173 BNSS) treating
the same as cognizable offence, by misusing the process of law, right from the beginning of the
case.

12. The police officer is under an obligation as per paragraph No. 97, 102 and 103 U.P. Police
Regulations to register an F.I.R. or N.C.R. in accordance with law, as prescribed under the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Otherwise, it will amount to violation of not only the provision mentioned in
1 All. Umme Farva Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
301
the Cr.P.C., but also the fundamental right, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution i.e. "no
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure
established by law."

13. The paragraphs 97, 102 and 103 of the U.P. Police Regulations are being quoted below:

"97. Whenever information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is given to
an officer-in-charge of a police station the report will immediately be taken down in triplicate in
the check receipt book for reports of cognizable offences (Police Form No. 341). The step will on
no account be delayed to allow time for the true facts to be ascertained by a preliminary
investigation. Even if it appears untrue, the report must be recorded at once. If they report is made
orally, the exact words of the person who makes it, including his answers to any questions put to
him should be taken down and read over to him; he must sign each of the three parts, or if he
cannot write, he must make his mark or thumb-impression. If a written report is received an exact
copy must be made, but the signature or mark of the messenger need not be taken. In all cases the
officer-in-charge of the station must sign each of the three parts and have the seal of the station
stamped on each. The triplicate copy will remain in the book; the duplicate copy will be given to
the person who makes the oral or brings the written report; the original will be sent forthwith
through the Superintendent of Police to the Magistrate having jurisdiction with the original written
report (if any) attached.

The practice of delaying first information reports until they can be sent to headquarters
attached to special or general diaries is contrary to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code
and is prohibited.

If there is an Assistant or Deputy Superintendent incharge of the subdivision, and
stationed at a place other than the headquarters of the district, the original should be sent through
him to the Magistrate.

x x x x

102. When a report is made of a non-cognizable offence, the important portion of the
report should be recorded in the check receipt book for reports of non-cognizable offence (Police
Form NO. 347). The informant should be required to sign or affix his mark to each of the two
copies. The duplicate copy should be given to him, the original remaining in the book. The
substance of the report should be entered in the general diary, and, if the report is in writing, the
proper containing should be attached to the diary. The informant should also be referred to the
Magistrate, as required by Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

103. The responsibility imposed on the officer-in-charge of police station by Section 154
and 155(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or non-cognizable, will be
enforced, and he must countersign all reports of either kind recorded."

14. In this case, the Investigating Officer, investigated the matter and found that, no case has
been made out against the wife/accused-applicant under Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C., and
thereafter, he prepared the police report/final report (closure report) on 19.06.2024 under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 193(3) BNSS) and submitted the report in the court of
Magistrate, without a written complaint of offence committed under Section 177 and 182 IPC
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Corresponding Section 212 and 217 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) in respect of furnishing false
information, as provided under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 215(1)(a)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

15. Sections 177 and 182 IPC (Corresponding to sections 212 and 217 of B.N.S.) cannot
be made redundant, that is to say that, in case any false information is furnished with intent to
cause public servant to use his lawful power to injury of another person, the Investigating Officer
shall also prepare a police report in form of complaint as provided/required under Section 195(1)(a)
Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 215(1)(a) BNSS). Thus, giving a false information to police to
lodge an F.I.R. or N.C.R. attracts offence provided under Section 177 and 182 IPC (corresponding
Section 212 and 217 BNS) and if after investigation, the Investigating Officer finds that no such
incident occurred as alleged in the F.I.R. or N.C.R., the Investigating Officer is under statutory
obligation, not only to submit a final report/closure report but also to submit a report of offence of
Section 177 and 182 IPC (corresponding Section 212 and 217 BNS) in form of complaint as
provided, under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 215(1)(a) of BNSS) for taking
cognizance. Otherwise, the concerned police officers are liable for committing an offence as
mentioned under Section 199 (b) BNS (corresponding Section 166A(b) of Cr.P.C.). The Section
199 BNS is delineated below :-

Section. 199 Public servant disobeying direction under law.-

Whoever, being a public servant-

(a) knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the
attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other
matter; or

(b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law
regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation; or

(c) fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of section 174 of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in relation to cognizable offence punishable under
section 64, section 65 section 66, section 67, section 68, section 71, section 73, section 76, section
122 or section 141 or section 142, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

16. The learned Judicial Magistrate shall not accept the Final Report, if the same is not
accompanied with a written complaint, under Section 177 and 182 I.P.C. (corresponding Section
212 and 217 BNS). The proceedings can only be initiated upon the filing of a proper complaint, in
line with the principle analogous to the Section 195(1)(a) CrPC. (Corresponding Section 215 (1) (a)
BNSS). Section 177 and 182 of IPC (Corresponding Sections 212 and 217 BNS) and Section 195
(1) Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 215 (1) BNSS) are being reproduced below :-

 "Section 177 I.P.C. Furnishing false information.-Whoever, being legally bound to
furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on
the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be p unished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both;
1 All. Umme Farva Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
303

or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an
offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to
the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

x x x x

"Section 182 I.P.C. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his
lawful power to the injury of another person-Whoever gives to any public servant any information
which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he
will thereby cause such public servant-

(a). to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true
state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or

(b). to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any
person,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

x x x x

Section. 212 of B.N.S. Furnishing false information.-Whoever, being legally bound to
furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on
the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false,-

(a). shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;

(b). where the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of
an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to
the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

x x x x

Section 217 of B.N.S.- False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his
lawful power to injury of another person- Whoever gives to any public servant any information
which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he
will thereby cause, such public servant -

(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true
state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him; or

(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any
person,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

x x x x
304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

(ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence,

Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other
public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following section of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both
inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any
proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475
or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of
a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any
offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),

Except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that
Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is
subordinate.

x x x x

Section 215 (1) BNSS - No Court shall take cognizance -

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 206 to 223 (both inclusive but excluding
section 209) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,

except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other
public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate or of some other public servant who is
authorised by the concerned public servant so to do;

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, namely, sections 229 to 233 (both inclusive), 236, 237, 242 to 248 (both
inclusive) and 267, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any
proceeding in any Court; or

(ii) of any offence described in sub-section (1) of section 336, or punishable under subsection (2) of section 340 or section 342 of the said Sanhita, when such offence is alleged to have
been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any
Court; or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any
offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),

except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that
Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is
subordinate.
1 All. Umme Farva Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
305

17. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in State of Punjab vs. Raj
Singh and another, (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 391, though under Section 173 of the
B.N.S.S. (corresponding Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.) an F.I.R. can be registered under section 172
to 188 I.P.C. (Corresponding section 206 to 223 of B.N.S., excluding Section 209 B.N.S.
(Corresponding Section 174A IPC) and thereafter investigation can be done but chargesheet cannot
be submitted in the above sections after conclusion of investigation, even if offence is made out
against the alleged accused persons, while a written complaint shall be filed by the concerned
police officer as required under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 215 of the
B.N.S.S.). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below:-

"2. We are unable to sustain the impugned order of the High Court quashing the F.I.R.
lodged against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 467 and 468 I.P.C.
by them in course of the proceeding of a civil suit, on the ground that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii)
Cr.P.C. prohibited entertainment of and investigation into the same by the police. From a plain
reading of Section 195 Cr.P.C. it is manifest that it comes into operation at the stage when the
Court intends to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) Cr. P.C.; and it has nothing to
do with the statutory power of the police to investigate into an F.I.R. which discloses a cognisable
offence, in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code even if the offence is alleged to have been
committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in Court. In other words, the statutory power of the
Police to investigate under the Code is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by Section 195
Cr.P.C. It is of course true that upon the charge-sheet (challan), if any, filed on completion of the
investigation into such an offence the Court would not be competent to take cognizance thereof in
view of the embargo of Section 195(1) (b) Cr. P. C., but nothing therein deters the Court from filing
a complaint for the offence on the basis of the F.I.R. (filed by the aggrieved private party) and the
materials collected during investigation, provided it forms the requisite opinion and follows the
procedure laid down tin section 340 Cr. P.C. The judgment of this Court in Gopal Krishna Menon
and Anr. Vs. D. Raja Reddy [AIR 1983 SC 1053], on which the High Court relied, has no manner
of application to the facts of the instant case for there cognizance was taken on a private complaint
even though the offence of forgery was committed in respect of a money receipt produced in the
Civil Court and hence it was held that the Court could not take cognizance on such a complaint in
view of Section 195 Cr. P. C."

18. The offence is always against the State therefore, if the Investigating Officer is submitting
police report/final report(closure report) under section 193(3) BNSS (corresponding Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C.), he shall also submit police report in form of written complaint under section 212 and 217
BNS (Corresponding Sections 177 and 182 IPC), against the informant and witnesses. The format
of police report, in form of written complaint under section 212 and 217 BNS (Corresponding
Sections 177 and 182 IPC) as provided under Section 215(1)(a) BNSS (Corresponding Section
195(1)(a) Cr.P.C.), in case of false information, to police to use his lawful power to injury any
person, in Hindi language as well as in English language are delineated below :-

प्रारूप
न्यायालय श्रीमान मुख्य न्यार्यक मजिस्ट्रेट /पवशेष न्यायालय, जिला ..................
पररवाद संख्या ...........वषत 20.....
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(अंतगत र्ारा 2(1)(ि), 210 (1) (क), 215 (1) (क), 223, 225 भारतीय नागररक सुरिा संदहता)
( समतुल्य अंतगत र्ारा 2(घ), 190(1)(क), 195 (1)(क), 200, 202 द० प्र० स०)
असभयोग अंतगत र्ारा 212 एवं 217 भारतीय न्याय संदहता , 2023 चलाने के संबंर् में
(समतुल्य र्ारा 177 एवं 182 भा० द० स०)
प्रकरण में:
राज्य द्वारा, पववेचक अचर्कारी के माध्यम से .................... (नाम; पद: थाना)
 ....... पररवादी / पववेचक
बनाम
असभयुक्त/सूचनाकतात एवं अन्य का नाम ( जिसने झूठी िानकारी उपलब्र् कराई ) एवं पूणत पता
 ...... प्रर्तवादीगण /असभयुक्तगण / सूचनाकतात एवं सािीगण
महोदय,
अत्यंत पवनम्र र्नवेदन है क्रक:
1. यह क्रक वततमान पररवाद पत्र/प्राथतना पत्र प्राथी (पववेचक) द्वारा भारतीय न्याय संदहता की र्ारा 212 एवं
217 ( समतुल्य र्ारा 177 एवं 182 भारतीय दंि संदहता ) के अंतगत, प्रथम सूचना ररपोटत दित कराने वाले
वादी एवं अन्य व्यजक्तयों के पवरुद्र् पवचर्क कायतवाही हेतु प्रस्ट्तुत क्रकया िा रहा है, क्योंक्रक वादी ने झूठी
िानकारी/तथ्यों/प्रपत्रों के आर्ार पर प्रथम सूचना ररपोटत (F.I.R एवं N.C.R.)(मुकदमा अपरार् संख्या
______,वषत ___, र्ारा ______, थाना _______, िनपद ______), दित कराकर, उसमें वणणत
असभयुक्तगण के पवरुद्र् पुसलस अचर्कारी (लोक सेवक) से उसकी वैर्ार्नक शजक्तयों का दुरुपयोग कराकर
िर्त पहुंचाया ।
2. यह क्रक उक्त प्रथम सूचना ररपोटत (संज्ञेय/असंज्ञेय अपरार्) ददनांक _____ को मुकदमा अपरार्
संख्या___सन___अंतगत र्ारा____ थाना ______ भारतीय न्याय संदहता के अंतगत श्री ________ एवं
अन्य व्यजक्तयों के पवरुद्र्, प्रर्तवादी/सूचनादाता द्वारा लगाए गए आरोपों के आर्ार पर पंिीकृत की गई
थी, िो पववेचना उपरांत असत्य पाई गई। तदोपरांत उसमे अंर्तम आख्या तैयार कर न्यायालय भेिी िा रही
है ।
3. यह क्रक पवस्ट्तृत पववेचना उपरांत यह तथ्य स्ट्पष्ट हुआ क्रक प्रर्तवादी द्वारा लगाए गए समस्ट्त आरोप
पूणतः असत्य, र्नरार्ार एवं दुभातवनापूणत थे, जिन्हें केवल नामिद व्यजक्तयों को िर्त पहुुँचाने के आशय से
दित कराया गया था। (तथ्य संलजननत केस िायरी में उपलब्र् है )
4. यह क्रक पववेचना से र्नम्नसलणित तथ्य प्रर्तपन्न हुए-

(i) प्रर्तवादी द्वारा ददनांक _____समय___ बिे को स्ट्थान _____ पर घटना ------ घदटत होना
नहीं पाया गया।

(ii) स्ट्वतंत्र गवाहों के कथन प्रर्तवादी/ सूचनाकतात के कथन को पूणतःअस्ट्वीकार करते हैं।
1 All. Umme Farva Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
307

(iii) पववेचना के दौरान संकसलत असभलेिीय साक्ष्य प्रथम सूचना ररपोटत में लगाए गए आरोपों का
िंिन करते हैं।

(iv) प्रर्तवादी की नामिद व्यजक्तयों से पूवतवती शत्रुता थी, िो गवाहों के कथनों से स्ट्पष्ट होता है।

(v) प्रर्तवादी द्वारा दुभातवनापूणत उद्देश्य से असत्य िानकारी के आर्ार पर प्रथम सूचना ररपोटत
(FIR/NCR) दित कराया गया।
5. यह क्रक उपयुतक्त तथ्यों के आर्ार पर, ददनांक ../../20... को अंर्तम आख्या (Closure Report) इस
माननीय न्यायालय के समि प्रस्ट्तुत क्रकया िा रहा है, जिसमें यह र्नष्कषत र्नकाला गया है क्रक प्रथम सूचना
ररपोटत (F.I.R./N.C.R.) असत्य एवं दुभातवनापूवतक संस्ट्थापपत की गई थी।
6. यह क्रक प्रर्तवादी का आचरण स्ट्पष्ट रूप से भारतीय न्याय संदहता के प्रावर्ानों के अंतगत, र्ारा 212 एवं
217 (र्ारा 177 एवं 182 भारतीय दंि संदहता ) के अंतगत अपरार् की श्रेणी में आता है। उपरोक्त र्ाराएं
र्नम्नवत उद्र्ृत क्रकया िा रहा है :-
भारतीय न्याय संदहता की र्ारा 212. समथ्या सूचना देना- िो कोई, क्रकसी लोक सेवक को, ऐसे लोक सेवक के
नाते, क्रकसी पवषय पर सूचना देने के सलए पवचर्क रूप से आबद्र् होते हुए, उस पवषय पर सच्ची सूचना के रूप
में ऐसी सूचना देता है, जिसका समथ्या होना वह िानता है या जिसके समथ्या होने का पवश्वास करने का
कारण उसके पास है.- (क) वह सादा कारावास से, जिसकी अवचर् छह मास तक की हो सकेगी, या िुमातने से
िो पांच हिार रुपए तक का हो सकेगा, या दोनों से, दंडित क्रकया िाएगा;
(ि) वह सूचना, जिसे देने के सलए वह पवचर्क रूप से आबद्र् है, कोई अपरार् क्रकए िाने के पवषय में हो, या
क्रकसी अपरार् के क्रकए िाने का र्नवारण करने के प्रयोिन से, या क्रकसी अपरार्ी को पकडने के सलए अपेक्षित
हो, तो वह दोनों में से, क्रकसी भांर्त के कारावास से, जिसकी अवचर् दो वषत तक की हो सकेगी, या िुमातने से, या
दोनों से, दंडित क्रकया िाएगा ।
भारतीय न्याय संदहता की र्ारा 217- इस आशय से समथ्या सूचना देना क्रक लोक अपनी सेवक पवचर्पूणत
शजक्त का उपयोग दूसरे व्यजक्त को िर्त करने के सलए करे - िो कोई, क्रकसी लोक सेवक को कोई ऐसी
सूचना, जिसके समथ्या होने का उसे ज्ञान या पवश्वास है, इस आशय से देता है क्रक वह उस लोक सेवक को
प्रेररत करे या यह सम्भाव्य िानते हुए देता है क्रक वह उसको उसके द्वारा प्रेररत करेगा क्रक वह लोक सेवक-
(क) कोई ऐसी बात करे या करने का लोप करे जिसे वह लोक सेवक, यदद उसे उस संबंर् में, जिसके बारे में
ऐसी सूचना दी गई है, तथ्यों की सही जस्ट्थर्त का पता होता तो न करता या करने का लोप न करता; या
(ि) ऐसे लोक सेवक की पवचर्पूणत शजक्त का उपयोग करे जिस उपयोग से क्रकसी व्यजक्त को िर्त या िोभ
हो,
वह दोनों में से, क्रकसी भांर्त के कारावास से, जिसकी अवचर् एक वषत तक की हो सकेगी, या िुमातने से, िो दस
हिार रुपए तक का हो सकेगा, या दोनों से, दंडित क्रकया िाएगा ।
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. यह क्रक भारतीय नागररक सुरिा संदहता,2023 की र्ारा 215(1)(a), (समतुल्य र्ारा 195(1)(क) भारतीय
प्रक्रक्रया संदहता) की र्ारा के अर्ीन, कोई भी न्यायालय उक्त अपरार्ों का संज्ञान तब तक नहीं लेगा, िब
तक क्रक संबंचर्त लोक सेवक द्वारा सलणित रूप में सशकायत प्रस्ट्तुत न की िाए।
भारतीय नागररक सुरिा संदहता की र्ारा 215(1) को र्नम्नवत उद्र्ृत क्रकया िा रहा है:-
भारतीय नागररक सुरिा संदहता की र्ारा 215 (1) कोई न्यायालय, -
(क) (i) भारतीय न्याय संदहता, 2023 की र्ारा 206 से र्ारा 223 (जिनके अंतगत र्ारा 209 के ससवाय ये
दोनों र्ाराएं भी हैं) के अर्ीन दंिनीय क्रकसी अपरार् का या
(ii) ऐसे अपरार् के क्रकसी दुष्प्रेरण या ऐसा अपरार् करने के प्रयत्न का; या
(iii) ऐसा अपरार् करने के सलए क्रकसी आपराचर्क षड्यंत्र का,
संज्ञान संबद्र् लोक सेवक के, या क्रकसी अन्य ऐसे लोक सेवक के, जिसके वह प्रशासर्नक तौर पर अर्ीनस्ट्थ
है या कोई अन्य लोक सेवक िो संबद्र् लोक सेवक द्वारा ऐसा करने के सलए प्राचर्कृत है, सलणित पररवाद
पर ही करेगा, अन्यथा नहीं;
(ि) (i) भारतीय न्याय संदहता, 2023 की र्नम्नसलणित र्ाराओं अथात र्ारा 229 से र्ारा 233 (जिनके
अंतगत ये दोनों र्ाराएं भी हैं), र्ारा 236, र्ारा 237, र्ारा 242 से र्ारा 248 (जिनके अंतगत ये दोनों र्ाराएं
भी हैं) और र्ारा 267 से क्रकन्हीं के अर्ीन दंिनीय क्रकसी अपरार् का, िब ऐसे अपरार् के बारे में यह
असभकचथत है क्रक वह क्रकसी न्यायालय में की कायतवाही में या उसके संबंर् में क्रकया गया है; या
(ii) उक्त संदहता की र्ारा 336 की उपर्ारा (1) में वणणत या र्ारा 340 की उपर्ारा (2) या र्ारा 342 के अर्ीन
दंिनीय अपरार् का, िब ऐसे अपरार् के बारे में यह असभकचथत है क्रक वह क्रकसी न्यायालय में की कायतवाही
में प्रस्ट्तुत क्रकए गए या साक्ष्य में ददए गए क्रकसी दस्ट्तावेि के बारे में क्रकया गया है; या
(iii) उपिंि (i) या उपिंि (ii) में पवर्नददतष्ट क्रकसी अपरार् को करने के सलए आपराचर्क षड्यंत्र या उसे करने
के प्रयत्न या उसके दुष्प्रेरण के अपरार् का, संज्ञान ऐसे न्यायालय के, या न्यायालय के ऐसे अचर्कारी के,
जिसे वह न्यायालय इस र्नसमत्त सलणित रूप में प्राचर्कृत करे या क्रकसी अन्य न्यायालय के, जिसके वह
न्यायालय अर्ीनस्ट्थ है सलणित पररवाद पर ही करेगा अन्यथा नहीं।

गवाहों की सूिी
र्नम्नसलणित व्यजक्तयों को प्रर्तवादी की समथ्या एवं दुभातवनापूणत मंशा को ससद्र् करने हेतु असभयोिन पि
के गवाह के रूप में स्ट्वीकार क्रकए िाने की प्राथतना है
1. पी० िब्लू-1: श्री -------[पववेचक (पररवादी) प्रथम सूचना ररपोटत ] पररवादी स्ट्वयं/पववेचना अचर्कारी -
अंर्तम ररपोटत एवं संपूणत अन्वेषण श्रृंिला को ससद्र् करने हेतु।
2. पी.िब्ल्यू.-2: श्री ____ (प्रथम सूचना ररपोटत में झूठा फुँसाया गए असभयुक्तगण ।
1 All. Umme Farva Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
309
3. पी.िब्ल्यू.-3: श्री ____ (स्ट्वतंत्र गवाह/पडोसी) - यह ससद्र् करने हेतु क्रक कचथत घटना कभी घदटत ही नहीं
हुई।
4. पी.िब्ल्यू.-4: श्री ____ (संबंचर्त असभलेिीय दस्ट्तावेिों के संरिक, िैसे - शासकीय असभलेि/सीसीटीवी
इत्यादद) - प्रर्तवादी के कथन की असत्यता ससद्र् करने हेतु।
पी.िब्ल्यू.-5: श्री ____ (सहायक पुसलस अचर्कारी/अन्वेषण दल का सदस्ट्य) - अन्वेषण कायतवाही को ससद्र्
करने हेतु।
(यह सूची उदाहरणाथत है तथा आवश्यकता पडने पर अन्य गवाह भी िाुँच/पवचारण की कायतवाही के दौरान
प्रस्ट्तुत क्रकए िा सकते हैं।)
प्राथतना
उपयुतक्त तथ्यों एवं पररजस्ट्थर्तयों के आर्ार पर, माननीय न्यायालय से पवनम्र प्राथतना है क्रक कृपया -
1. इस आवेदन को संपूणत केस िायरी सदहत, भारतीय न्याय संदहता की र्ारा 212 एवं 217 (र्ारा 177 एवं
182 भारतीय दंि संदहता ) के अंतगत एक पररवाद (सशकायत) के रूप में ग्रहण क्रकया िाए एवं र्ारा 210 (1)
(क ) भारतीय नागररक सुरिा संदहता, 2023 (समतुल्य र्ारा 190 (1 ) (क) द० प्र० स० ) में संज्ञान लेते हुए
र्ारा 227 भारतीय नागररक सुरिा संदहता, 2023 ( समतुल्य र्ारा 204 द० प्र० स० ) में तलब कर दजडित
क्रकया िाय |
2. उपयुतक्त उजल्लणित साक्षियों की सूची असभलेि पर सलया िाए तथा उपरोक्त गवाहों को र्ारा 223 एवं
225 भारतीय नागररक सुरिा संदहता, 2023 के तहत गवाही से अवमुक्त क्रकया िाय िैसा क्रक र्ारा 223
(second Proviso ) भारतीय नागररक सुरिा संदहता, 2023 में वणणत है
3. न्यायदहत में इस माननीय न्यायालय को िो अन्य आदेश/आदेशावली उचचत एवं आवश्यक प्रतीत हो, वह
पाररत करने की कृपा करें।
पररवादी
ददनांक :---- (पववेचक अचर्कारी
अ०स०..सन ..र्ारा _)
नाम :-
पद :-
थाना :------ जिला :----
मोबाइल :-
सत्यापन
मैं, श्री __________, पुत्र श्री __________, िनपद __________ वततमान में थाना __________, पर
र्नयुक्त, इस बात का सत्यापन करता हूुँ क्रक उपयुतक्त पररवाद पत्र के पवषय तथ्य वस्ट्तु मेरी व्यजक्तगत
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
िानकारी, की गई पववेचना एवं संर्ाररत असभलेिों के आर्ार पर सही एवं सत्य है। इसमें कोई भी महत्वपूणत
तथ्य गोपपत नहीं रिा गया है।
यह सत्यापन मैंने __________ में आि ददनांक __ ____20__को क्रकया।
पररवादी /पववेचक
नाम: _______________
पद: _______________
थाना:______ जिला:____
पररशिष्टों की सूिी

क्र. सं.
अशिलेख का वववरण
पररशिष्ट संख्या
1.

वाद अपराध सं० .......थाना .......का
प्रथम सूिना ररपोटट (एफ.आई.आर.) की
प्रततशलवप संपूणट केस डायरी सहहत।
पररशिष्ट-

2.

वववेिक द्वारा हदनांक ......... को तैयार
अन्ततम आख्या/समापन प्रततवेदन
पररशिष्ट-

3.
अतय कोई प्रासंचगक अशिलेख
पररशिष्ट