Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Brij Mohan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Puneet Saxena, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A-I for the State.
2. By means of the instant applicant filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant Brij Mohan has challenged the validity of the charge sheet no. 1 of 2023 dated 05.06.2023 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 272/2023, Police Station Lalganj, District Raebareli, and the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Raebareli in Case No. 24381 of 2023, taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that all the offences are non-cognizable and, therefore, neither an F.I.R could be lodged regarding the offence under Section 323, 504, 506 nor could a charge sheet have been submitted nor could the court have taken cognizance of the offence and have summoned the applicant to face the trial of a State Case and only a complaint could have been entertained by the Court in respect of non-cognizable offences.
4. The Offence under Section 323, 504 I.P.C are undisputedly non-cognizable offence. The first Schedule appended to the Criminal
Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.
The main legal point established is the validity of the notification making Section 506 IPC cognizable and non-bailable, and the determination that Section 506 should be tried as a State case, not as....
State notification deemed to amend cognizability status of offenses under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; mala fide motives behind F.I.R. questioned.
Point of law : The rule of construction laid down in Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 also requires that reference to the repealed enactment made in any instrument be construed as reference....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the F.I.R. under Section 174-A I.P.C. was barred by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., and the court's decision was based on the interpretation of ....
The main legal point established is the interpretation of the expression 'which may extend to three years' in the context of determining the cognizable nature of the offence under Section 91(6)(a) of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the analysis of the legislative intent and implications of the provisions under Sections 500, 504, and 506 of the IPC, particularly focusing on the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
