Santosh Kumar Trivedi vs State of U.P.and Another

R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the chargesheet submitted by the police in case crime No. 250 of 2005 under Section 506, I.P.C. police station Kotwali District Shahjahanpur.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Since the point involved in this application is a legal point. I am deciding this application at the admission stage after hearing the parties Counsel.

The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that on 1662005 Mukesh Kumar Saxena, Inspector, Police Lines, Shahjahanpur lodged a report against the applicant. Santosh Kumar Trivedi, Advocate, under Sections 452 and 506 I.P.C in respect of an incident which had allegedly taken place at his residence in Kotwali compound police station Kotwali. Shahjahanpur. It was registered as crime No. 250/05. In respect of this very incident Santosh Kumar Trivedi, Advocate, also lodged a report against Mukesh Kumar Saxena giving crossversion of that incident under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. which was registered as case crime No. 250A of 2005.

The Investigating Officer of case crime No. 250 of 2005 has submitted chargesheet against the applicant under Section 506 I.P.C. only after investigation on 13207 and on that charge sheet the Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance. Aggrieved with that order of taking cognizance, the applicant has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court.

It is to be seen that the chargesheet has been submitted under Section 506 I.P.C. only. The offence under Section 506 I.P.C. was originally noncognizable and bailable, but it was made cognizable and nonbailable vide, the U.P. Government Notification No. 777/VIII94(2)87 dated July 31, 1989. However, this notification was held to be illegal and ultravires by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of ''Virendra Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.'', 2000(1) JIC 936 (All) : 2002 (45) ACC page 609. So now the legal position is that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is bailable and noncognizable.

It has been provided in the explanation to Section 2(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code that a report made by the 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. In view of this explanation, the chargesheet submitted by the police in the above case under Section 506 I.P.C. could not be treated to be police case, but it would be deemed to be a complaint and the police officer who submitted the chargesheet is to be deemed to be the complainant. As such, the order passed by the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance on the chargesheet as a state case is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed to this extent that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the chargesheet in case crime No. 250 of 2005 under Section 506 I.P.C. police station Kotwali District Shahjahanpur is set aside and the above chargesheet shall be treated to be a complaint under Section 506 I.P.C. and the Magistrate concerned shall follow the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code for taking action on the complaint.

Application allowed.