JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vipul Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State-opposite party.

2. The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet no. 262 of 2020 dated 19.07.2020, the cognizance order dated 25.02.2021 and entire proceedings of Case No. 14457 of 2021 pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate III, Kanpur Nagar (State Vs. Atmaram Yadav and others) in Case Crime No. 249 of 2020 under Sections 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Vidhnu, District Kanpur Nagar insofar as it relates to the applicants.

3. The facts as pleaded in the application are to the effect that an FIR No. 0249 was registered on 01.06.2020 under Sections 379, 323, 504 Indian Penal Code, [IPC] at P.S. Vidhnu, District Kanpur Nagar in which the applicants herein were named as accused. The case was investigated by the police and charge-sheet no. 262 of 2020 was submitted on 19.07.2020 under Sections 323, 504 IPC whereupon the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate III, Kanpur Nagar passed an order of cognizance on 25.02.2021.

4. Apart from raising contentions which are factual in nature and would relate to examining the defence of the applicants, the principal grounds urged by counsel for the applicants to seek quashing of the proceedings are as follows :

4.1 The FIR having been lodged in respect of cognizable offences under Sections 379, 323, 504 IPC and upon investigation the charge-sheet having been filed only under Sections 323, 504 IPC, which are offences of non-cognizable nature, the case would be covered by the explanation to Section 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [CrPC] and it would be deemed to be a compliant. As a consequence cognizance ought to be taken by the Magistrate under Section 190 (1) (a) CrPC and not under Section 190 (1) (b). In support of his submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment in the case of Mahendra Kumar Chaudhary and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2022 (118) ACC 212.

4.2 The order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance is not a reasoned order as is the requirement as per the law laid down in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749.

5. Controverting the aforestated submissions, learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing for the State-opposite party submits as under :

5.1 The FIR having been registered in respect of offences of a cognizable nature the same was investigated by the police and a report having been submitted disclosing offences under Section 323, 504 IPC which are of a non-cognizable nature the report would be deemed to be a complaint as per the explanation to Section 2 (d). Referring to the proviso to Section 200 CrPC, it is submitted that the complaint having been made by a police officer, who is a public servant acting in the discharge of his official duties, the Magistrate while taking cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) was not required to examine the complainant and witnesses. It is submitted that since cognizance has been taken on a police report treating the same to be a deemed complaint, no reasons are required to be assigned for the purpose.

5.2 The case having been duly investigated and a report having been submitted, the order of cognizance even if held to be referable to Section 190 (1) (b), the same cannot be said to have led to a failure of justice since in a summons case as per the procedure prescribed under the Code there is no distinction with regard to the manner in which the trial is to proceed between cases instituted on a police report and those instituted otherwise than on a police report; this is more so for the reason that Section 465 is also applicable to challenges to interlocutory orders such as a cognizance order or summons order.

5.3. No prejudice having been caused to the applicants with regard to the procedure the order taking cognizance even if it is held to be vitiate