Dataram Pandey and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Dataram Pandey and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 20, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1115480

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1115480
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Sunil Hali
Decided On: Dec 20, 2012
Case Number: Application No. 42816 of 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dataram Pandey and Others

Respondent

State of U.P. and Another

Excerpt

sunil hali, j. heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned a.g.a. the applicants have come to this court seeking quashment of the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 2627 of 2012, state versus siyaram and others, under sections 504, 506 ipc p.s. handia, district allahabad pending in the court of acjm, court no. 7, allahabad. the magistrate has taken cognizance under section 190b on a report submitted by the police in respect of offences which were non-cognizable. according to explanation of section 2(d) of the criminal procedure code, 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. it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the magistrate has taken cognizance on this report filed under section 190b in respect to non-cognizable offence under sections 504 , 506 i.p.c. from the perusal of the order, it clearly emerges that the police has investigated the case in respect of offences which were non-cognizable and submitted report before the magistrate who has taken cognizance on the said report. the charge sheet reflects that applicants have committed under sections 504 , 506 which are non-cognizable. in such a situation, the report submitted by police has to be treated as a complaint. the magistrate has no power to take cognizance directly on the basis of a police report. he can take cognizance only after treating it as a complaint. in view of this, the application is allowed and cognizance order dated 16.11.2012 passed by acjm. court no. 7, allahabad is set aside. it is however, made clear that the case shall be treated to be a complaint case and the procedure prescribe for hearing of the complaint shall be followed by the court concerned before summoning the applicants.

Full Judgment

Sunil Hali, J.

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

The applicants have come to this Court seeking quashment of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2627 of 2012, State versus Siyaram and others, under sections 504, 506 IPC P.S. Handia, District Allahabad pending in the court of ACJM, Court no. 7, Allahabad.

The Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 190B on a report submitted by the police in respect of offences which were non-cognizable. According to explanation of Section 2(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 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.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Magistrate has taken cognizance on this report filed under Section 190B in respect to non-cognizable offence under Sections 504 , 506 I.P.C.

From the perusal of the order, it clearly emerges that the police has investigated the case in respect of offences which were non-cognizable and submitted report before the Magistrate who has taken cognizance on the said report. The charge sheet reflects that applicants have committed under Sections 504 , 506 which are non-cognizable. In such a situation, the report submitted by police has to be treated as a complaint. The Magistrate has no power to take cognizance directly on the basis of a police report. He can take cognizance only after treating it as a complaint.

In view of this, the application is allowed and cognizance order dated 16.11.2012 passed by ACJM. court no. 7, Allahabad is set aside. It is however, made clear that the case shall be treated to be a complaint case and the procedure prescribe for hearing of the complaint shall be followed by the court concerned before summoning the applicants.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2012 Same Parties Dataram Pandey and Others vs State of U.P. and Another Same Subject Education Same Judge Sunil Hali