Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3718 (ALL)

RAMESH CHANDRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-12-11

Y.K.SANGAL

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Y.K. Sangal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C moved on behalf of the applicants to quash the criminal proceedings in criminal case No. 693 of 2009 State v. Ramesh Chandra and others under Sections 323 & 504 IPC, P.S. Koiaraona, district Sant Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Bhadohi at Gyanpur including charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer dated 29.12.2008. 3. On the report lodged on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Suresh Chandra Gupta, a non-cognizable case was entered by the Police against all the applicants for the offence under Section 323 & 504 IPC. Later on an application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. was moved by the respondent No. 2 before the learned Magistrate and on the application in place of passing the order of registration and investigation by the police in the matter vide order dated 26.9.2008, learned Magistrate have issued direction to the police of P.S. concerned to investigate the matter on the first information report lodged by Suresh Chandra Gupta entered as non-cognizable report. Under the order of the Court police of the P.C. concerned started investigation in the matter and charge-sheet was submitted against all the four accused persons. On the same, cognizance was taken by the Court and ordered for summoning the accused. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer is for the non-cognizable offence under Sections 323 and 504, IPC. It should have been treated as complaint case in place of State case and the investigating officer should have been treated as complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that wrong procedure of State case was started by the learned magistrate. He referred the definition of the complaint given under Section 2 (d), Cr.P.C. which reads as follows : 2 (d) “ 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. 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 complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant; 4. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that in place of straightway summoning the accused persons on this complaint/charge-sheet . Learned Magistrate should have adopted the procedure of complaint case and he should hare recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200. Cr.P.C. and his witnesses under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and only then after seeing the prima facie case, accused persons should have been summoned to face trial. 5. This argument of the learned counsel for the applicants has no force . Even if, it is taken correct that after investigation under the order of the Court, if report of commission of non-cognizable offence was submitted by the Investigation Officer, Magistrate was not required to adopt the procedure of recording the Statement under Section 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. Section 200, Cr.P.C. reads as follows : 200. Examination of complainant.—A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate : Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses - (a) If a public prosecutor acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) ....................................... 6. The above shows that when the complaint is made in writing by a public servant purporting to Act in the discharge of his official duties, Magistrate need not examine complainant and witnesses under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and Section 203, Cr.P.C. provides that in taking the cognizance, no reasons are to be recorded. In the present case, after submission of the report (said charge-sheet) by the Police Officer after taking cognizance on the same orders for summoning the accused persons were passed. In place of charge sheet this report can be treated complaint. Procedure for trial of State case and complaint case in summon trial case is same after appearance of the accused persons. In place of charge sheet this report can be treated complaint. Procedure for trial of State case and complaint case in summon trial case is same after appearance of the accused persons. Hence it cannot be said that any wrong was committed by the learned Magistrate in the matter. 7. Other grounds of challenge made on behalf of the applicants that there is no injury report in the matter. If four or more accused would have beaten the informant with their respective arms no visible injury will be there on the body of the victim, it is not believable. In the present case, accused persons were summoned for offence under Section 323, IPC only which relates to the simple injuries. It is not necessary in all cases there should be visible injury on the body of the victim. Moreover, it is not the case of no injury report. Copy of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is already on record which clearly shows that there are three injured persons having sufficient injuries on their body inflicted by the blunt object and also by sharp edge weapon. After seeing these injuries and report order for investigation was passed by the learned Magistrate. In the circumstances of the case, applicants are not entitled for any relief on this score also. 8. Order for investigation was passed on the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., not on the application under Section 155 (2), Cr.P.C. Learned counsel also challenged the validity of the order on this score also. It is not material in heading what section is mentioned. It is to be seen by the Magistrate under what provisions; he will have to pass the order. In place of passing the order of registration of the case and investigation in the matter, if the Magistrate has passed the order for investigation on the report already entered at the police station for non-cognizable offence and learned Magistrate is empowered to pass such order under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. then there is no illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the order. Nowhere it is said in the order of taking cognizance in what section of Cr.P.C. the magistrate has taken cognizance. 9. Nowhere it is said in the order of taking cognizance in what section of Cr.P.C. the magistrate has taken cognizance. 9. From the above all discussion, I do not find any cause to interfere in the proceedings of criminal case referred above and there is no reason to quash the order of summoning and taking cognizance in the matter by the learned Magistrate. Application deserves to be dismissed. 10. However, in the light of the observations made above, learned Magistrate is directed to correct the Court record and register accordingly. Application is finally disposed accordingly. ————