A.F.R.

Court No. - 57
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5839 of 2010

Revisionist :- Bahori And Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Singh Ii
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Narayan Singh
Kushwaha

Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

This criminal revision has been preferred against the order

dated 23.11.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in
Case No. 1804 of 2010 (State Vs. Bahori and others).

Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that after

investigation police submitted the charge sheet under sections
427, 504, 506 IPC which discloses non cognizable offences,
therefore, in view of section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., case should not
be proceeded as a police case. Further contended that charge
sheet submitted by the police in a non cognizable offences shall
be treated as a complaint and the procedure prescribed for
hearing of the complaint case shall be applicable to the case. In
support of his contention learned counsel for the revisionists
cited the following rulings: 2007(9) ADJ 478 Dr. Rakesh
Kumar Sharma VS. State of U.P. and another; 2008(2) ADJ
253 Awadhesh Kumar and others VS. State of U.P. and
another and 2010(9) ADJ 496 Dhanveer and other Vs. State
of U.P. and another.

Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions made by

learned counsel for the revisionists and stated that initially the
case was registered under sections 448, 427, 504, 506 IPC and
had admitted this fact that after investigation, charge sheet has
been filed under sections 427, 504, 506 IPC which are non
cognizable offences.

Having considered the arguments raised by both the parties.

From the record, it transpires that against three accused persons

namely Bahori, Mukesh and Suresh an application filed under
section 156(3) Cr.P.C, case was registered under sections 448,
427, 504, 506 IPC and after investigation, it is an admitted fact
that the charge sheet has been filed against three accused
persons under sections 427, 504, 506 IPC.
The submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the
proceedure being adopted by the trial court is not under
Chamber XV of the Cr.P.C. but the proceedings are going on
under Chamber XIV of the Cr.P.C. which relates to the police
case and not as a compliant case.

It is relevant to mention the explanation of section 2(d) which

reads as under:

"Explanation- A report made by a police officer in a case which

discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-
cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a compliant; and the
police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to
be the complainant."

On the basis of aforesaid explanation which has been

interpreted in a Single Judge decision decision of this Court in
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another
2007(9) ADJ 478, it has been held that when the charge sheet is
only of non cognizable offences then in view of the aforesaid
provision, the charge sheet should be treated as a complaint.

It is further relevant to mention that initially FIR was lodged

under sections 448, 427, 504, 506 IPC but after investigation
only charge sheet under sections 427, 504, 506 IPC submitted
by the Investigating Officer.

So, the Court finds force in the contention raised by learned

counsel for the revisionists that the case would not be
proceeded as a police case because the offence under sections
427, 504, 506 IPC are non cognizable offences. Under this fact
situation, the case only be proceeded as a complaint case in
view of the aforesaid explanation section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C.

However, so far as offence under section 506 IPC is concerned,

the Uttar Pradesh Government Notification No. 777/VIII-94(2)-
87 dated July, 1989 published in U.P. Gazettee, Extra Part-4
Section (Kha) dated 2nd August, 1989, the above notification
issued by the government held to be illegal by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others 2000(2) JIC 649 (All). So, the
decision now is that the offence under section 506 IPC is also
non cognizable offence. However, it is not in dispute that the
offence under sections 427, 504, 506 IPC is non cognizable
offence as I have already stated in view of section 2(d) of the
Cr.P.C., if after investigation the commission of cognizable
offence is disclosed and charge sheet is filed that shall be
deemed to a complaint and police officer by whom such report
is made shall be deemed to be a complainant.
Resultant, charge sheet submitted by police in a non cognizable
offence shall be treated as a complaint and procedure prescribed
as complaint case shall be applicable to that case.

As aforesaid, from the perusal it transpires that the charge sheet

submitted by the Investigating Officer under sections 427, 504,
506 IPC should have been treated to be a complaint case and
the procedure ought to be followed as drawn in Chamber XV of
the Cr.P.C. by the trial Magistrate, as per law cited by learned
counsel.

With the aforesaid observations, the present criminal revision is

allowed. The impugned order dated 23.11.2010 passed by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Etah is hereby set aside. The trial
Magistrate is directed to treat the charge sheet as a complaint
case and procedure prescribed for hearing of the complaint shall
be followed after giving opportunity to both the parties.

Order Date :- 10.7.2017

RPD