IMPORTANT POINT
Cognizance of non-cognizable offences must follow complaint procedure, and any delay in cognizance is barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Shri Vipin Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicants and Shri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A.-I for the State respondent.

2. The applicants by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') have challenged the summoning order dated 07.12.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate-III, Faizabad in Case No.1197/2012, State Vs. Ram Ajore & others, arising out of N.C.R. No. 85 of 2008, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gosainganj, District Faizabad as well as the impugned charge sheet dated 10.04.2012, submitted in N.C.R. No.85/2008, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. along with the entire proceedings of Case No.1197/2012.

3. Briefly stating, the story put forth by the prosecution is that as the complainant was on his way to his house from the field he was abused by the applicants and one Ram Ajore with fists and kicks in front of the house of Hari Ram. Further it has been alleged that the complainant was threatened and even when his wife came to save him, she was also beaten by them which led to the lodging of N.C.R. No. 85 of 2008 on 03.09.2008 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

4. Although, learned Counsel for the applicants has disputed the aforesaid facts and claimed that the applicants as well as opposite party no.2/complainant belonged to the same village, there was partibandi and the story put forth is concocted and false. However, the fulcrum of the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicants are two fold; firstly, he has argued that Explanation appended to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. provided that a report made by the police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint and the Investigating Officer, who has made the said report, shall be deemed to be a complainant and as such the same ought to have been proceeded as per procedure laid down for treating the same as a complaint and no cognizance could have been taken on the said report treating the same as a police report as has been sought to be done in the impugned summoning order dated 07.12.2013. The second leg of argument addressed by the learned Counsel for the applicants is relating to limitation for taking cognizance by the Magistrate in view of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. According to learned Counsel, admittedly, the Investigating Officer has filed a report and a cognizance of the same has been taken by the learned Magistrate after expiry of more than three and a half (3½) years for an offence which prescribes the minimum punishment of one year. Thus, according to him, the said cognizance is clearly barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and the present impugned summoning order as well as the entire proceedings is bad in law specially when there is no compliance or application of Section 473 Cr.P.C. relating to explanation for condoning the delay.

5. It has been pointed out by learned Counsel for the applicants that while entertaining the present application, the entire proceedings in Case No.1197/2012 was stayed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.02.2014.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants.

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record available before this Court, this Court finds that charge-sheet in N.C.R. No. 85 of 2008 has been filed by the Investigating Officer under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. So far as the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is concerned, maximum punishment that could be awarded for the offence is one year and fine up to Rs.1000/-, whereas for the offence under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. is concerned, the maximum punishment awarded is of two years respectively.

8. First & foremost, it has to be understood that cognizance indicates the point when a Co