Hon’ble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by Dhanveer and three others with a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet dated 12.1.2000 (Annexure 6) submitted in N.C.R. No. 311 of 2009 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and the entire proceedings of Case No. 1113 of 2010; State v. Dhanveer and others, registered against the applicants pursuant to the submission of the aforementioned charge-sheet as well as the summoning order dated 7.5.2010 (Annexure 7) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Aligarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the opposite party No. 2 filed a non-cognizable report on 3.12.2009 at P. S.-Iglas, District-Aligarh against the applicants on the basis of which N.C.R. No. 311 of 2009 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. was registered. The opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate-I, under Section 155 (2) Cr. P.C. with a prayer that the concerned police station be directed to investigate the matter. Pursuant to the order passed on the aforesaid application the matter was investigated and police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I. P. C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Aligarh against the applicants whereupon Case No. 1113 of 2010; State v. Dhanveer and others, was registered against the applicants and the Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Iglas, Aligarh by the order dated 7.5.2010 summoned the applicants for facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. are non-cognizable, hence in view of the Explanation to Section 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case could not proceed as State Case and it had to proceed as a complaint case. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate has erroneously passed an order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet.

5. It is not disputed that the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. are not-cognizable. 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, 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 others v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (2) JIC 649 (All) : 2000 (45) ACC 609, and so the position now is that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is also a non-cognizable offence.

6. It is clear from above that all the three offences punishable under Sections 322, 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."

7. In view of the said Explanation report of the police officer after investigation disclosing commission of non-cognizable offence is to be deemed to be a complaint and the police officer who submitted the report has to be deemed to be a complainant. In other words the charge-sheet submitted by the police in a non-cognizable offence shall be treated to be a complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of complaint case shall be applicable to that case.

8. In the present case from the material brought on record it transpires that the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer instead of being treated as a complaint, has been taken cognizance of by the concerned Magistrate as a State Case, which is not permissible under law.

9. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for