JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—"Whether cognizance on the charge-sheet containing cognizable offence against some accused and non-cognizable offence against other accused is without jurisdiction", is the main point that falls for consideration in this proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Cr.P.C.), by means of which the applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court praying for quashing the proceeding of S.T. No. 1419 of 2008 (State v. Gurcharan and others), arising out of case Crime No. 505 of 2007, under Section 506, IPC pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Moradabad. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., in brief, are that an FIR was lodged on 12.10.2007 by the complainant Km. Shabana (O.P. No. 2 herein) at P.S. Pakwara, District Moradabad, where a case under Sections 376/511, 323 and 506, IPC at case Crime No. 505 of 2007 was registered against Achchhan, Puttan, Chhamman and Guchchhan. After investigation, charge-sheet under Section 376/511, IPC was submitted against the accused Achchhan and Puttan, whereas charge-sheet under Section 506, IPC has been submitted against the applicants-accused Chhamman and Guchchhan. Against all the accused persons joint charge-sheet has been submitted, on which cognizance was taken and after committal of the case to the Court of Session for trial, S.T. No. 1419 of 2008 has been registered against the accused persons. It is also revealed from the record that charge under Section 506, IPC only has been framed against the applicants, vide order dated 12.1.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Moradabad. Being aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance, the applicants have approached this Court for quashing the proceeding of aforesaid session trial. 3. I have heard argument of Sri Raj Kumar Khanna Advocate appearing for the applicants and AGA for the State at the admission stage. 4. The main submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants was that the offence punishable under Section 506, IPC is non-cognizable and hence, the Court below could not take cognizance against the applicants on the basis of the charge-sheet. 4. The main submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants was that the offence punishable under Section 506, IPC is non-cognizable and hence, the Court below could not take cognizance against the applicants on the basis of the charge-sheet. The contention of Sri R.K. Khanna, learned counsel for the applicant, was that for the offence punishable under Section 506, IPC, only the complainant can be filed and if after investigation charge-sheet is submitted by the investigating officer for non-cognizable offence, then the charge-sheet also will be treated as complaint and investigating officer would be deemed to be complainant. For this contention, my attention has been drawn towards Section 2 (d), Cr.P.C., which defines "complaint". The learned counsel for the applicants invited my attention towards certain decisions also, which have been mentioned in the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. On the basis of the definition of complaint and decisions mentioned in the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., it was vehemently contended by Mr. Khanna that cognizance taken by the Court below against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 506, IPC on the basis of the charge-sheet is without jurisdiction and hence, entire proceeding of S.T. No. 1419 of 2008 pending against the applicants should be quashed. 5. Aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants are not at all relevant in present case, because in Uttar Pradesh, Section 506, IPC has been made cognizable offence vide notification No. 777/VIII-9-4 (2) dated 31.8.1989 published in U.P. Gazette, Ext. Pt-4 section (Kha), dated 2.8.1989. Therefore, the learned Court below did not commit any illegality in taking cognizance on the basis of the charge-sheet against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 506, IPC. 6. Otherwise also, the entire case of aforesaid crime No. 505 of 2007 shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, because Section 376/511 is a cognizable offence. In this regard reference may be made to Section 155 (4), Cr.P.C., which reads thus : "Section 155 : Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.— (1) .................... (2) .................... (3) .................... (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non­cognizable". 7. (2) .................... (3) .................... (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non­cognizable". 7. Although in Uttar Pradesh the offence punishable under Section 506, IPC has been made cognizable as stated herein-above, but as provided in more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the entire case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. 8. It is very unfortunate that Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, Advocate, without looking to the first schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure and without going through Section 155 (4), Cr.P.C. has filed frivolous application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with a view to cause delay in the proceeding of S.T. No. 1419 of 2008. 9. For the reasons mentioned herein-above, there is no scope to make any interference in the order of taking cognizance against the applicants. 10. Consequently, the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., being devoid of any substance, is hereby rejected. ————