- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings of case No. 500 of 2005, State v. Vinay Kumar, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Jaunpur.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application are that a First Information Report was lodged by Dinesh Chandra Tiwari against accused Kashi Nath, Pappu, Vinay Kumar and Pravesh under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I. P. C. on the basis of which case crime No. 41 of 2005 was registered at police station Rampur District Jaunpur. THE police after investigation of the case submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I. P. C. and on that charge-sheet Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused persons. Aggrieved with that order, present application has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A. G. A. for the State. The learned Counsel for the applicants made only one submission before me. He submitted that offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I. P. C. are non-cognizable so in view of the explanation to Section 2 (d) Cr. P. C. this case could not proceed as State case and it was to proceed as complaint case and the learned Magistrate erroneously passed an order for treating it as State case. Photostat copy of a ruling of this Court in Crl. Misc. Application No. 8632 of 2002, Sri Lalit Madhav Das and Anr. v. State of U. P. and Anr. , decided on 4-10-2002 was also placed before me by the learned Counsel for the applicants and he relied upon the said ruling in support of his contention.
(3.) I have carefully gone through the said ruling. It is to be seen that it is not disputed that offences under Sections 323 and 504 I. P. C. are non-cognizable and the offence under Section 506 I. P. C. was made cognizable and non-bailable vide the Uttar Pradesh Government Notification No. 777/viii-94 (2)-87 dated July 31, 1989 published in U. P. Gazette, Extra Part-4 Section (Kha) dated 2nd August, 1989. This notification issued by the Government was held to be illegal by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 2000 (2) JIC 649 (All) : 2000 (45) ACC 609, and so the position is that now the offence under Section 506 I. P. C. is also a non-cognizable offence. The position in this way is that all the three offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I. P. C. are non- cognizable. Explanation to Section 2 (d) of the Cr. P. C. runs as under: "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. ";