Hon’ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Case No. 1804 of 2010 (State v. Bahori and others).

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that after investigation police submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 427, 504, 506 IPC which discloses non cognizable offences, therefore, in view of Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., case should not be proceeded as a police case. Further contended that charge-sheet submitted by the police in a non cognizable offences shall be treated as a complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of the complaint case shall be applicable to the case. In support of his contention learned counsel for the revisionists cited the following rulings: Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and another, 2007(9) ADJ 478; Awadhesh Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2008(2) ADJ 253 and Dhanveer and other v. State of U.P. and another, 2010(9) ADJ 496.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionists and stated that initially the case was registered under Sections 448, 427, 504, 506 IPC and had admitted this fact that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 427, 504, 506 IPC which are non cognizable offences.

5. Having considered the arguments raised by both the parties.

6. From the record, it transpires that against three accused persons namely Bahori, Mukesh and Suresh an application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, case was registered under Sections 448, 427, 504, 506 IPC and after investigation, it is an admitted fact that the charge-sheet has been filed against three accused persons under Sections 427, 504, 506 IPC.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the proceedure being adopted by the trial Court is not under Chamber XV of the Cr.P.C. but the proceedings are going on under Chamber XIV of the Cr.P.C. which relates to the police case and not as a compliant case.

8. It is relevant to mention the explanation of Section 2(d) which reads 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 compliant; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant.”

9. On the basis of aforesaid explanation which has been interpreted in a Single Judge decision decision of this Court in Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and another, 2007(9) ADJ 478, it has been held that when the charge-sheet is only of non cognizable offences then in view of the aforesaid provision, the charge-sheet should be treated as a complaint.

10. It is further relevant to mention that initially FIR was lodged under Sections 448, 427, 504, 506 IPC but after investigation only charge-sheet under Sections 427, 504, 506 IPC submitted by the Investigating Officer.

11. So, the Court finds force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the revisionists that the case would not be proceeded as a police case because the offence under Sections 427, 504, 506 IPC are non cognizable offences. Under this fact situation, the case only be proceeded as a complaint case in view of the aforesaid explanation Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C.

12. However, so far as offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the Uttar Pradesh Government Notification No. 777/VIII-94(2)-87 dated July, 1989 published in U.P. Gazettee, Extra Part-4 Section (Kha) dated 2nd August, 1989, the above notification issued by the Government held to be illegal by the 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). So, the decision now is that the offence under Section 506 IPC is also non cognizable offence. However, it is not in dispute that the offence under Sect