FAISAL ASHRAF Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Man Singh for applicant while pressing prayer to quash cognizance order dtd. 9/6/2020 in Criminal Case No. 9281 of 2020 whereby Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar took cognizance of offence under Ss. 504 and 506 I.P.C. on charge sheet dtd. 14/2/2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 551 of 2018 (State vs. Faisal Ashraf) Police Station- Noida Sector-20, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, as well as impugned summoning order dtd. 20/6/2022 whereby Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar has dismissed criminal revision no. 108 of 2022 (Faizal Ashraf vs. State of U.P. and another) mentioned only on a ground that charge sheet was submitted only on basis of written statements of witnesses which cannot be considered to be a statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. which mandatory requires that investigating officer will examine oral in person supposed to be acquainted with facts and circumstances of the case and police officers will adduce in writing any statement made to him in course of examination which may also include statement recorded by audio and video electronic means, therefore, entire investigation is contrary to procedure prescribed in Code of Criminal Procedure and as such charge sheet becomes illegal.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh and others, AIR 1964 SC 358 of which relevant paragraphs no. 7 and 8 are quoted hereinafter :-

(3.) He also placed reliance upon a paragraph of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Noor Mohammad vs. Khurram Pasha, (2022) 9 SCC 23 which reiterates that "It is a normal rule of construction that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself. If that be so, since the Commission cannot exercise the power of relaxation found in Sec. 119(2)(a) in the manner provided therein it cannot invoke that power under Sec. 119(2)(a) to exercise the same in its judicial proceedings by following a procedure contrary to that provided in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 119.".