JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code the applicants have prayed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 05.08.2022 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 21.12.2022 in Criminal Case No. 24449 of 2022 (State vs. Mahesh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.207 of 2022, under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Soro, District Kasganj, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj.

3. The accused-applicants and the informant-opposite party no.2 have their lands beside each other. It is being alleged that the aforesaid applicants tried to illegally grab the portion of the land which belongs to opposite party no.2 inspite of the land mark fixed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned demarcating the area of land belonging to the opposite party no.2. It is further alleged that when the opposite party no.2 tried to intervene and defend the aforesaid he was abused and manhandled by the applicants. In furtherance thereof, a First Information Report dated 05.06.2022 was lodged.

4. An investigation was carried out pursuant to the aforesaid FIR and statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the police has submitted the charge sheet on 05.08.2022 stating that upon investigation, from the statements of the witnesses and inspection of the site of occurrence, commission of the offence under Sections 434 and 447 IPC were not found and merely offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC were found to have been committed. The implication of the two named accused in the FIR i.e.Sanjay and Radheysham was not found during investigation due to lack of evidence against them and therefore they were exonerated from the charge sheet. The charge sheet has been forwarded to the court for trial of the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that although originally the first information report was lodged under Sections 434, 447, 504, 506 IPC but during investigation, the allegation with regard to commission of offence under Sections 434 and 447 IPC was found to be false and only a case under Sections 504 and 506 IPC was found to be made out against the applicants, both of which are non-cognizable offences and, therefore, the case against the applicants can only proceed as a complaint. In support of his submission, he has invited attention of the Court to the Explanation appended to Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. In order to appreciate his submission, the relevant provision of Cr.P.C. is being reproduced below: -

"(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.

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"

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a judgments of this Court in (i) Santosh Kumar and 2 Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another 2019:AHC:18156, and (ii)Anurag Yadav And 2 Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Anr 2020:AHC:39811, in these two cases originally the FIR was lodged under sections 323, 504 IPC whereas in, (iii) Rama Shankar Upadhayay And 3 Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another 2022:AHC:190995 in which FIR was lodged under sections 323, 504 and 427 IPC. In this backdrop a coordinate Bench of this Court held that the Magistrate shall not proceed with the case as a State case but he shall proceed with it as a complaint case as provided in the explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.

7. However, in the present case, apart from an offence under Section 504, an offence under Section 506 IPC has also been found