Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.

Heard Sri V.S. Chaurasia, Advocate holding brief of Sri Panchu Ram Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing the charge-sheet dated 1.7.2014 in pursuance of N.C.R. No.28 of 2014 dated 14.3.2014 (State Vs. Rajkapoor @ Lallu) in Criminal Case No.488 of 2015 (488/IX/2015) under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Saidpur, District Ghazipur as well as cognizance order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Saidpur, dated 29.6.2015.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are bailable and non-cognizable according to 1st Schedule of Cr.P.C. and according to the provisions of explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., the charge-sheet filed before the Magistrate is to be treated as complaint and the order of Magistrate taking cognizance dated 29.6.2015 is liable to be quashed; that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. was made cognizable vide Notification No.777 dated 31.7.1989 but later on in the case of Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (45) ACC 609, a Division Bench of this Court declared above notification, making the offence cognizable and non-bailable, to be illegal and so the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. has to be treated bailable and non-cognizable; that since the Division Bench of this Court has declared the above Notification No.777 dated 31.7.1989 to be illegal, apart from offences under Section 323 & 504 I.P.C., the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is also non-cognizable and so the provisions of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. are attracted.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench has no binding effect in view of the pronouncement of Full Bench made by this Court in the case of Mata Sewak Upadhyay and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1995 JIC 1168 (Alld.), wherein the validity of above provisions/notification was upheld; that the above notification still holds good and has not been deleted or withdrawn in pursuance of the above Division Bench judgment in the Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra)'s case; that in any case by repeal of old Code of 1898, the provisions brought through Notification No.777 (supra) do not become redundant.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record and before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Section 10 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Section 506 I.P.C., relevant part of 1st Schedule of Cr.P.C. relating to offence under Section 506 I.P.C. with State Amendment, as well as the provisions of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. are being reproduced for ready reference as under:-

"Section 10 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932:-

Section 10 Power of State Government to make certain offences, cognizable and non-cognizable.

(1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare that any offence punishable under Sections 186, 188, 189, 190, 228, 295A, 298, 505, 506 or 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when committed in any area specified in the Notification shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be cognizable and thereupon the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall while such notification remains in force, be deemed to be amended accordingly.

(2) The State Government may, in like manner and subject to the like conditions, and with the like effect, declare that an offence punishable under Section 188 or Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, shall be non-bailable.

Section 506 of Indian Penal Code:-

"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.-Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.-And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of