Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20031 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39819 of 2024 Applicant :- Kallu Alias Dharmendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devraj Yadav,Satyam Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the prayer clause during the course of hearing. 3. Delay in filing the present application is explained. 4. Sri Satyam Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Chhavi Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 5. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1227 of 2018 (State Vs. Kallu @ Dharmendra Kumar), arising out of N.C.R. No. 19 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C., Police Station Soraon, District Prayagraj as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 15.6.2018, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 15, Allahabad. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cognizance/summoning order dated 15.6.2018 has been passed against the applicant and the magistrate took cognizance as a police case, which is against the provision of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C. is non-cognizable offence and as per provision of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. the case could not be a State case and it 2 has been proceeded as a State case, the cognizance/ summoning order is an / abuse of the process of law. 8. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein below: (d)"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 non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complainant, and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant; 9. A bare perusal of explanation added to Section 2(d) shows that this explanation speaks about cases where police has investigated a cognizable case but investigation made discloses a non-cognizable offence. 10. In view of what has been stated above, the present application is disposed of. The order impugned dated 15.6.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 15, Allahabad is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remanded back to the court concerned and the Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order after applying the judicial mind. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 T. Sinha Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad