Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State -respondent.
(2.) THE only argument raised by counsel for the applicants is that, it is not disputed that offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 356, 342 IPC is non -cognizable and the offence under Section 506 IPC was cognizable and non -bailable vide Uttar Pradesh Government Notification No. 777/VIII94(2) -87 dated July 31, 1989. This notification issued by the government was held to be illegal by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others,, XLV 2000 ACC 609 and so the position is that now the offence under section 506 IPC is also a non -cognizable offence. It has been further argued that the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 356, 342 IPC, are non -cognizable so in view of the explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. the court below cannot proceed as State case and it can only be proceeded as complaint case and the person who has filed the report shall be treated to be complainant and the learned Magistrate erroneously passed an order treating it as State case. In view of this the offence under Section 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 356, 342 IPC are non -cognizable so in view of the explanation of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. report of police officer after investigation regarding commission of non -cognizable offence shall be deemed to be complaint and the police officer who submitted the report shall be deemed to be the complainant. So the report submitted by the police officer in an non -cognizable offence only shall be treated to be complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of complaint case shall be applicable to that case. In the present case according to the explanation of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. charge sheet submitted by the police under Section 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 356, 342 IPC shall be treated as a complaint and it is to be decided as complaint. The learned Magistrate felt in legal error by taking cognizance as State case and the order passed by him is, therefore, liable to be set at rest.
(3.) PER contra learned AGA has contended that Section 506 IPC has been made cognizable and the vires of the amendment in Cr.P.C. making it cognizable has been upheld by a full bench of this Court in the case of Mata Sewak Upadhyaya vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in, 1995 AWC 2031 :, 1996 All. JIC 107. He further submitted that in view of this the judgment of Mata Sewak Upadhayaya delivered by the full bench has to be followed.;