SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 231

VINEET SARAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
NAHAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Santosh Kumar Mishra, Vineeta Singh, Prem Prakash, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Apoorv Kurup, Advocates

JUDGMENT

Aniruddha Bose, J.

Leave granted.

2. The question which we shall be addressing in this appeal is whether a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report in terms of Section 190 (1)(b) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) can issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report and whose name also does not feature in column (2) of such report. In this case the person concerned, being the appellant, was not named in the First Information Report either. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has opined on this question in the affirmative in the judgment delivered on 14th May, 2015. This judgment is under appeal before us. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (1860 Code) on 8th August, 2012 on the basis of police report. These are offences triable before a Court of Session. The police report had named two individuals as accused-Yogesh and Rupa (the spelling of the name of the latter has been interchangeably used in different proceedings emanating from the First Information Report (F.I.R.) a

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    Judicial Analysis

    State of U.P. [(1995) 2 SCC 23]: Explicitly described as "was doubted" in Shalini Kashyap VS State of U. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1008.

    Kishun Singh (supra): Described as followed by the doubted State of U.P. [(1995) 2 SCC 23] decision in Shalini Kashyap VS State of U. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1008; additionally, "the view expressed in Kishun Singh vs." appears in Mohit Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 24 immediately after positive references to Nahar Singh and Dharam Pal, implying criticism or questioning in context; the snippet in Shalini Kashyap VS State of U. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1008 further notes that a related view ("taking cognizance even though the material exists has no force") contradicts its position, as reiterated in Nahar Singh.

    Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 5 SCC 295: Explicitly followed, relied upon, quoted (e.g., para 17, para 25), and cited as authoritative in nearly every snippet, including ("reiterated by the Supreme Court in a recent case of Nahar"), Mama @ Bidyut Prava Khuntia VS State of Orissa - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 669, A. Ochathevar VS State Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Samayanallur, Madurai - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3854, Asif Ahmad Siddiqui VS State of U. P. - Crimes (2023), Asif Ahmad Siddiqui VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 924, Yuvraj Naag VS State Of U. P. , Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 683, Mohit Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 24, Mahender Kumar Khandelwal VS Directorate of Enforcement - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 201, Albert David Ltd. Thru. Its Plant Head Namely Hemant Tukaram Nazare VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U. P. Lucknow - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 84, Kamlesh Singh (In Adhaar Kamlesh Kumar Singh) VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 224, Shamsher Bahadur VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 342, Richard Yimto VS State of Nagaland, Rep. by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1157, Raju Rajput VS Raju Rajput - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 588, Ram Agya Singh @ Ram VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 103, Ram Agya Singh @ Ram Adya Singh vs State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1539, Nisha Kushwaha vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2315, and Amrita jain vs State of NCT, Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 382.

    Dharam Pal (Supra): "Constitution Bench Judgment... has been followed in Nahar Singh vs. State of U.P." in Mohit Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 24.

    Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92: "Placing reliance upon Hardeep Singh (supra)" and "reliance upon Hardeep Singh (supra)" in Kamlesh Singh (In Adhaar Kamlesh Kumar Singh) VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 224 and Raju Rajput VS Raju Rajput - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 588.

    Ranjit Singh: Cited as "following Ranjit Singh" by State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 3 SCC 383 in Mama @ Bidyut Prava Khuntia VS State of Orissa - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 669.

    State of Maharashtra, 2015 (3) SCC (Cri) 138: Cited alongside Bhagwant Singh in Yuvraj Naag VS State Of U. P. , Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 683 in a positive context quoting Nahar Singh.

    Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police, 1985 AIR (SC) 1285: Cited alongside State of Maharashtra in Yuvraj Naag VS State Of U. P. , Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 683 in a positive context quoting Nahar Singh.

    State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 306: Referenced in connection with "judgement in the case of Nahar Singh Vs." in Nisha Kushwaha vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2315, in positive context.

    State of Andhra Pradesh (1965) 1 SCR 269: Quoted for definition of "complaint" in Shalini Kashyap VS State of U. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1008 but in a snippet leading into doubting later cases; no explicit treatment indicator.

    State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 3 SCC 383: Described as "following Ranjit Singh" in Mama @ Bidyut Prava Khuntia VS State of Orissa - 2022 0 Supreme(Ori) 669; no direct treatment of this case itself.

    State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409: Declared something by Supreme Court per A. Ochathevar VS State Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Samayanallur, Madurai - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3854; positive phrasing but linked to Nahar Singh context.

    Balveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan: Cited as "Coordinate Bench in Balveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan" in Kamlesh Singh (In Adhaar Kamlesh Kumar Singh) VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 224; neutral reference.

    State of Karnataka, (1989) 2 SCC 132: Cited in Shamsher Bahadur VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 342; neutral.

    State of U.P. AIR 1951 SC 207: Cited in Albert David Ltd. Thru. Its Plant Head Namely Hemant Tukaram Nazare VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U. P. Lucknow - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 84; neutral.

    State of W.B.: Cited in Mahender Kumar Khandelwal VS Directorate of Enforcement - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 201; neutral/incomplete.

    State of A.P.: Cited in Mahender Kumar Khandelwal VS Directorate of Enforcement - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 201; neutral/incomplete.

    State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409: Phrasing "the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared" in A. Ochathevar VS State Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Samayanallur, Madurai - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3854 suggests positive, but snippet is incomplete and links to recent Nahar Singh (2022); unclear if this is affirmed or contextualized differently.

    Jeevan Singh Vs.: Incomplete reference "(c) Jeevan Singh Vs." in Richard Yimto VS State of Nagaland, Rep. by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1157; no treatment discernible.

    Unnamed propositions in Raj Kishore Prasad VS State Of Bihar - 1996 4 Supreme 87, Balveer Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 2016 4 Supreme 206 1, DHARAM PAL VS STATE OF HARYANA - 2013 5 Supreme 553, Swil: A. Sasikanth: J. Rajmohan Pillai VS State Of Nct Of Delhi: State Of Delhi: Union Of India - 2001 6 Supreme 85, P. C. Gulati (In All Appeals) VS Lajya Rain - 1965 0 Supreme(SC) 190, Raghubans Dubey VS State Of Bihar - 1967 0 Supreme(SC) 15, Hardeep Singh VS State of Punjab - 2014 1 Supreme 132: These describe holdings/principles (e.g., Magistrate forbidden to apply mind at s.209 stage, addition only via s.319; or conversely, jurisdiction to summon), which appear contrary to the Magistrate's powers affirmed in Nahar Singh across multiple snippets, suggesting potential bad law treatment by implication, but no explicit case names, keywords like "overruled," or direct criticism; categorized here due to ambiguity without specific identifiers or treatment language.

    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top