JUDGMENT :

1. Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Man Singh for applicant while pressing prayer to quash cognizance order dated 09.06.2020 in Criminal Case No. 9281 of 2020 whereby Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar took cognizance of offence under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. on charge sheet dated 14.02.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 551 of 2018 (State vs. Faisal Ashraf) Police Station-Noida Sector-20, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar, as well as impugned summoning order dated 20.06.2022 whereby Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar has dismissed criminal revision no. 108 of 2022 (Faizal Ashraf vs. State of U.P. and another) mentioned only on a ground that charge sheet was submitted only on basis of written statements of witnesses which cannot be considered to be a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which mandatory requires that investigating officer will examine oral in person supposed to be acquainted with facts and circumstances of the case and police officers will adduce in writing any statement made to him in course of examination which may also include statement recorded by audio and video electronic means, therefore, entire investigation is contrary to procedure prescribed in Code of Criminal Procedure and as such charge sheet becomes illegal.

2. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh and others, AIR 1964 SC 358 of which relevant paragraphs no. 7 and 8 are quoted hereinafter :-

"7. In Nazir Ahmed case [LR 63 IA 372] the Judicial Committee observed that the principle applied in Taylor v. Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch D 426, 431] to a court, namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, applied to judicial officers making a record under Section 164 and, therefore, held that the Magistrate could not give oral evidence of the confession made to him which he had purported to record under Section 164 of the Code. It was said that otherwise all the precautions and safeguards laid down in Sections 164 and 364, both of which had to be read together, would become of such trifling value as to be almost idle and that "it would be an unnatural construction to hold that any other procedure was permitted than that which is laid down with such minute particularity in the sections themselves".

8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch D 426, 431] is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted. A Magistrate, therefore, cannot in the course of investigation record a confession except in the manner laid down in Section 164. The power to record the confession had obviously been given so that the confession might be proved by the record of it made in the manner laid down. If proof of the confession by other means was permissible, the whole provision of Section 164 including the safeguards contained in it for the protection of accused persons would be rendered nugatory. The section, therefore, by conferring on Magistrates the power to record statements or confessions, by necessary implication, prohibited a Magistrate from giving oral evidence of the statements or confessions made to him."

3. He also placed reliance upon a paragraph of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Noor Mohammad vs. Khurram Pasha, (2022) 9 SCC 23 which reiterates that "It is a normal rule of construction that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itsel