Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35419 Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4981 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd.Javed And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Maya Ram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicants seeking following reliefs:- "To set-aside the impugned summoning order dated 07.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Gonda in criminal case i.e. (State Vs. Mohd. Javed & another) arising out of NCR No. 0077/2022, dated 14.05.2022, U/ S- 323, 504 IPC, Police Station- Dhanepur, District- Gonda and to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 14.05.2024 submitted by Investigating Officer in aforesaid sections against the applicants on which without thoroughly perusing the case diary and properly applying his judicial mind, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Gonda passing the impugned order summoned the innocent applicants for facing trail under section 323, 504 IPC (contained as ANNEXURE NO. 1 & 2) with the affidavit filed in support of this application." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offences, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. are non cognizable offence, therefore, the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer cannot proceed as a police case and the same is liable to be proceeded with as a complaint case. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Murli and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 54, Virendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (45) ACC 609 and Shakila Bano and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 636. He has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. 4. According to the first Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offences, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C are non cognizable, therefore, the Explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., is attracted in this case. Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: "(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 a complaint and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant. 5. After considering the rival arguments and perusal of record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not in accordance with above referred provision of Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C. In view of above, it is wrong, illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. In view of above, application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. Matter is remanded back to the trial court for passing appropriate order on the report filed by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law, in the light of observations made above, after hearing the necessary parties, except the applicants who are proposed accused. 7. Office is directed to communicate this order to C.J.M., concerned for necessary compliance, forthwith. Order Date :- 12.6.2025 Arpan Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench