- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the - applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) By invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the applicants Praveen Kumar and two others have filed this application with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 3324 of 2010 pending against them before the CJM, Muzaffarnagar. Briefly stated, one Mangey Ram, opposite party No. 2 lodged a report against the applicants which was registered as non-cognizable report No. 8 of 2010 at P.S. Kotwali, district Muzaffar Nagar. Complainant Mangey Ram moved an application Under Section 155(2) Code of Criminal Procedure before the concerned Magistrate praying that the Police be directed to investigate into the matter. Pursuant to the order of the Magistrate, the case was investigated and after investigation a charge-sheet under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC was filed in the Court. The Magistrate concerned taking cognizance, by his order dated 24.4.2010, summoned the applicants to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. Hence this application.
(3.) It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC are non-cognizable and in view of the explanation to Sections 2(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, the case could not proceed as a State case, but the Magistrate belying the procedure laid down for taking cognizance on a complaint, has taken cognizance directly on the charge-sheet which is against law. It may be pointed out that Explanation to Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes that "A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation the commission of 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, Relying on the decision of Virendra Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.,2002 45 ACC 609, it is next argued by the learned Counsel of applicants that the offence under Sections 5061 PC was declared cognizable and non-bailable vide U.P. Government Notification No. 777A/III-94 (2)-87 dated 2.8.1998, but the same has been held illegal by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh (supra). Thus, the notification ceases to have any impact and the offence under Section 506 IPC remains to be non-cognizable and bailable. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance on the charge-sheet is erroneous, against law, vitiating the proceedings of the case, therefore, is liable to be quashed.;