VIMLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Ambika Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Rajendra Kumar Dwivdei, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the proceedings of Case No.156 of 2006 now present case No.1217 of 2010, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Sultanpur, inter alia on the ground that once the offence, which is complained, is non cognizable office and the Magistrate takes cognizance thereof, he has to proceed with the same according to the procedure provided for the complaint case, not as a police case.

(3.) Upon perusal of the record, I find that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence committed under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence committed under Section 506 of the IPC has been held as cognizable offence by the Full Bench of this court in the case of Mata Sewak Upadhyay and another v. State of U.P.,1995 JIC 1168, in light of which I am of the view that it is absolutely incorrect to say that the offence constituted against the petitioner is non cognizable offence. Once the offence is cognizable offence the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offence as a police case, as is permissible under the law, therefore, I do not find error in the proceedings of the court below.