GHANSYAM DUBEY@ LITILE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

(2.) It is to be seen that the charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. were all non-cognizable and bailable, but the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. was made cognizable and non-bailable vide, the U.P. Government Notification No. 777/VIII-94(2)-87 dated July 31, 1989. However, this notification was held to be illegal and ultra-vires by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of 'Virendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others'. So now the legal position is that the offence under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. are bailable and non-cognizable. It has been provided in the explanation to Section 2(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code that a report made by the police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognisable 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. In view of this explanation, the charge-sheet submitted by the police in the above case under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. could not be treated to be police case, but it would be deemed to be a complaint and the police officer who submitted the charge-sheet is to be deemed to be the complainant. As such, the order passed by the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance on the charge-sheet as a state case is illegal and is liable to be set aside.