MANOJ RANA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) Briefly stated, an FIR was lodged by the applicant against opposite parties No. 2 to 5 as Case Crime No. 755 of 2009, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Daurala, District Meerut on 11.11.2009 regarding the incident dated 15.7.2009. Thereafter, the police investigated the matter and Section 452 I.P.C. was not found to be true by the police but rest case was found to be true and the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. against the opposite parties No. 2 to 5. Learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the officence vide order dated 1.4.2010. Thereafter, the opposite parties No. 2 to 5 challenged the aforesaid order in criminal revision No. 54 of 2012 on the ground that the learned Magistrate has wrongly taken cognisance for offence vide order dated 1.4.2010 and the case should not be proceeded as complaint as the offences are non-cognizable offence and the State cannot proceed. Learned Revisional Court vide order dated 25.5.2012 allowed the criminal revision for the reason that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is non-cognizable offence and the case should proceed as complaint case and summoned the applicant to face the trial for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the lower revisional Court has wrongly placed reliance on the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others,2002 45 ACC 609 All, wherein it was held that the offence under Sections 506 IPC was declared cognizable and non-bailable vide U.P. Government Notification No. 777/VIII-9-4 (2)-87 dated 31.7.1989, but the same has been held illegal by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh . Thus, the notification ceases to have any impact and the offence under Section 506 IPC remains to be non-cognizable and bailable. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the said judgment of the Division Bench is not a good law as it has failed to consider a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mata Sewak Upadhyay v. State of U.P.,1995 JIC 1168, where the legality and validity of this notification came for consideration. Without going into the details of the decision, for the purpose of this case, it may be pointed out that the aforesaid Full Bench decision lays down that Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 is not merely an Amending Act but that is a blend of substantive provisions as well as the provisions amending Cr.P.C. of 1898. So the Act of 1932 is still on the statute book, notwithstanding the repeal of Cr.P.C. 1898. It was further held that applying the rule of construction as laid down in Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, it becomes clear that the notification issued under Section 10 with reference to Cr.P.C. 1998 should be read as having been issued with reference to the Cr.P.C. 1973. It was held that law has to be construed in such a fashion as to make it workable and enforceable than redundant. It was held that Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Government Notification No. 777/VIII-9-4 (2)-87 dated 31.7.1989 making Section 506 I.P.C. cognizable and non-bailable offence are valid.