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 a complaint case.

Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Charge-sheet and Summoning Order - Sections 147, 149, 352, 427, 504 and 506 IPC - [147, 149, 352, 427, 504, 506 IPC] - The court discussed the validity of the notification making Section 506 IPC cognizable and non-bailable, and the applicability of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. in treating charge-sheet as a complaint. The court upheld the validity of the notification and ruled that Section 506 is cognizable and non-bailable, to be tried as a State case not as a complaint case.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought quashing of the charge-sheet and summoning order in a case involving Sections 147, 149, 352, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, arguing that the charge-sheet should be treated as a complaint case.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the notification making Section 506 IPC cognizable and non-bailable, and ruling that the charge-sheet should be tried as a State case, not as a complaint case.
Issues: Validity of the notification making Section 506 IPC cognizable and non-bailable, and the applicability of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. in treating charge-sheet as a complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notification making Section 506 IPC cognizable and non-bailable is valid, and Section 506 should be tried as a State case, not as a complaint case.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the applicant was given the liberty to move an application for discharge at an appropriate stage.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.appearing for State of U.P.-opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 04.01.2019 as well as summoning order dated 15.10.2019 in Case No.1216 of 2019 (State vs. Ashish Singh @ Rinku Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 257 of 2018 under Sections 147, 149, 352, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Lohta, District Varanasi, pending before Judicial Magistrate-IV, Varanasi.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that initially F.I.R. has been lodged against two known persons and some unknown persons. Even during investigation their name could not be ascertained and charge-sheet has been submitted only against applicant as another accused who has expired during investigation.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the offence under Sections 147, 149, 352, 427, 504 and 506 IPC are non-cognizable hence in view of the explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., the case can not proceed as State case but has to proceed as complaint case. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate has erroneously passed an order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on the decisions rendered by the Division Bench in Virendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2000 (2) JCC 649 (All) and on the orders/decisions following the Division Bench decision passed in Bahori and others vs. State of U.P. and others [2017 (10) ADJ 480]; Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. and another [2007 (9) ADJ 478]; Awadhesh Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another [2008 (2) ADJ 253]; and Dhanveer and others vs. State of U.P. and another [2010 (9) ADJ 496].

5. I have carefully considered the above submissions.

6. It is not disputed that the offence under Sections 147, 149, 352, 427, 504 and 506 IPC are non-cognizable. Two persons were named in the F.I.R., one expired during investigation. The sole argument that during investigation, none was identified nor anyone was traced by Police, hence submission of charge-sheet under Sections 147 and 149 of I.P.C. is an error and no charge-sheet can be submitted, under the circumstances in this reference F.I.R. and statement of witnesses are relevant at this stage. Moreover, invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is unwarranted to interfere in the case at pre-trial stage,. The offence under Section 506 IPC was made cognizable and non-bailable vide U.P. Govt. notification No. 777/VIII 9-4(2)-87 dated July 31, 1989, published in the U.P. Gazette, Extra, Part-4, Section (kha) dated 2nd August, 1989. This notification was held to be illegal in Virendra Singh (supra). Consequently, offence punishable under Section 506 IPC was held to be non-cognizable and in view of the explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. report of the police officer after investigation disclosing case of non-cognizable offence has to be deemed to be a complaint, therefore, the police officer submitting the report has to be deemed to be a complaint. In other words the charge-sheet submitted by the police in a non-cognizable offence shall be treated to be a complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of the complaint case shall be applicable to that case. It is in this backdrop, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer shall be treated as a complaint and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate shall be deemed to have been taken on a complaint.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application placing reliance on the Full Bench decision rendered in Mata Sewak Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and others, 1995 AWC 2031 (1996 (1) ECRC 97), wherein, the validity of the notification making Section 506 IPC cognizable offence vide U.P. notification was upheld. Relying on Mata Sewak (supra) subsequent decisions have been rendered in