High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ajit Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 3093 of 2007  RD-AH 2696 (20 February 2007)
Court No. 10
Crl. Misc. Application no. 3093 of 2007
Ajit Singh and another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Applicants.
The State of U.P. and another . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .Opp.Parties.
Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.
This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of Crl. Misc. Case no. 74 of 2005, Ved Prakash Vs. Surjeet Singh alias Bhippi and others, under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. police station Gursarai district Jhansi pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Garautha district Jhansi.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State at the admission stage and this case is being finally disposed of at this stage.
The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that Ved Prakash O.P. no.2 filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants Ajit Singh and Surjeet Singh in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Garautha district Jhansi which was registered as Crl. Misc. Case no. 74 of 2005. The application was moved in respect of offences punishable under sections 452, 323 , 506 and 504 I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate passed an order on this application directing the Station Officer of the concerned police station to register and investigate the matter. Thereafter the F.I.R. was registered at the police station at case crime no. 424 of 2005.The police after investigation of the case submitted a charge sheet against the accused under sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. only. It was registered as Crl. Case no. 143 of 2006 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Garautha. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the charge sheet and summoned the accused persons.
Now this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved to quash the proceedings of the above case.
The applicants have pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the application that district Jhansi is a scheduled dacoity affected area and so cognizance of the offence under section 452 I.P.C. could be taken by the Special Judge ( Dacoity Affected Areas) only and so the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass any order in this case. These pleas have been taken in paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit.
It is to be seen that the offence punishable under section 452 I.P.C. involves house trespass having made preparation to cause hurt, and it has got no concern with dacoity. I have also perused the entire application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. There is no allegation of dacoity of any sort in the entire application. As such there is no force in this contention of the applicants that the matter was cognizable by the Special Judge ( Dacoity Affected Areas ) and that Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter and to entertain the application under section156(3) Cr.P.C. His above contention has got no force and is liable to be rejected.
The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that according to the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. an incident of beating had taken place on 22.11.2005, but a perusal of the injury report reveals that the injured was medically examined on 24.12.2005 and so entire allegation made in the application are unreliable and concocted.
However, the learned A.G.A. submitted in reply that it has been stated at the top of the injury report in third line that the injured was medically examined on 24.11.2005 at 9.30 A.M. and it appears that there has been some clerical mistake in the date below signature of the doctor at the end of the report where the date 24.12.05 has been written. He further pointed out that the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was itself moved on 5.12.2005 and in its para 4 it was written that the applicant and his brother Ram Prakash were medically examined on 24.11.2005. He further submitted that this plea regarding so-called contradiction between the ocular version and the medical evidence can be taken by the accused applicants before the trial court.
In this way the applicants have not been able to make out any case for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case. However, it is to be seen that in this case the charge sheet has been submitted under sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. which are non-cognizable offences and so under the explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., the report of a police officer in such a case shall be deemed to be a complaint and the police officer by whom the report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant. So the Magistrate shall proceed with the trial of the case as complaint case.
The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of subject to above observations regarding trial of the case.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.