2025:UHC:729 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 528 No.270 of 2024 11 February, 2025 Siddharth Mohan Singhal --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Medha Pande, learned counsel for respondent No.2/informant. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. Act 2023 is directed against the proceedings pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, being Criminal Case No.1377 of 2023 State Vs. Siddharth Mohan Singhal and Ors., for the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC. Further, a prayer has been made to quash charge-sheet and the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.12.2023 passed under the self-same proceedings. 3. The facts in nutshell are that an FIR (N.C.R.), being FIR No.39 of 2022 dated 15.02.2022 was lodged by the respondent No.2-Rahul Chauhan against the applicant and others, wherein, the occurrence of 13.02.2022 at 11:30 PM has been 2025:UHC:729 2 shown. It was stated therein that the accused persons intentionally committed the incidence with the informant to provide breach of peace. The matter related to the election campaigning, wherein, the informant was threatened at the hands of the applicant and others. In that matter, the investigation was carried out on an N.C.R. (Non- Cognizable Report). The Investigating Officer, on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC. The Court concerned took cognizance on the said charge-sheet against the applicant vide order dated 07.12.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant challenged the impugned order on the ground that in a case arising out of Non Cognizable Report, the Police can only submit its report and that report shall be treated as a complaint case by the Court, in view of the express provision of the Code given in Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the Non Cognizable Report was investigated and the charge sheet was submitted, but the same has wrongly been treated by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar as a State case and cognizance was taken and applicant has been summoned. 6. Learned State Counsel also agreed to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. 2025:UHC:729 3 7. In order to consider the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, appreciation of Section 2(d) and explanation appended thereto, is needed. 8. Section 2(d) along with its explanation is quoted hereinbelow:- “complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.” Explanation.-A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a noncognizable 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; 9. From perusal of the definition “Complaint” and its Explanation, it is clear that if on the report submitted by Police Officer after investigation, it discloses the commission of non cognizable offence, it shall deemed to be a complaint and the Police Officer by whom such a report is made shall be deemed to be complainant. 10. Having gone through the explanation appended to Section 2(d) of the Code, it appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar has wrongly taken cognizance on the police report as a State case (instituted on police report) and wrongly summoned the applicant accused to face the trial. Rather charge sheet/police report should have been treated as a complaint and further to proceed in the complaint in accordance with the provisions of Part XV of the Code. 2025:UHC:729 4 11. In this view of the matter, the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 07.12.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.1377of 2023, State Vs. Siddharth Mohan Singhal and Ors., under Section 504 of IPC, is hereby quashed. 12. Accordingly, C528 application is allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar is directed to take charge sheet/report submitted by the Police Officer as a complaint and to proceed in accordance with law, as provided under Chapter XV of the Code. 13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.02.2025 PN