HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40549 of 2024 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J. 1. Case called out in the revised list. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 4039 of 2019 (State Vs. Kailash Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 201 of 2015, under Sections 323 of I.P.C., Police Station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh, as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 23.11.2018 and order dated 28.09.2023 (by which charge has framed), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that charged Sections are bailable Sections and the learned Magistrate may pass an order taking cognizance if he so desires by proceeding under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further argued that the order impugned has been challenged and reliance has been placed to explanation 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is argued that no permission was taken under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. and charge sheet has been submitted in non cognizable offence. Learned Counsel has relied upon a Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009(64) ACC 296 M/s Eicher Tractor Ltd. and others Vs. Harihar Singh and another as well as another reported Judgement of this Court reported in 2008 (1) JIC 220 (All) Awdesh Kumar and others Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankur Verma, Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anshal Kumar, G.A., Nehal Beg Satish Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Vs. State of U.P. and others in support of his contention. 5. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that for matter under Section 323 I.P.C. Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. creates a bar for taking cognizance after the lapse of period of limitation. The provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. read as under: "468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1) ..................................................................... (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) ..................................................................... (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) ........................................................" 5. Learned A.G.A. has stated that no useful purpose would be served in issuing notice to the opposite party no. 2 as it will only delay the proceedings of the present case. 6. The order taking cognizance has been passed and it is argued that charge sheet has been submitted under the charged sections which are non cognizable offence. Reliance has been place on Explanation to Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:- "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 complaint, and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complaint." 6. Therefore, on the basis of Explanation which has been interpreted in a Single Judge decision of this Court reported in 2007 (3) JIC 654 (All); 2007 (9) ADJ 478 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another, it has been held that when the charge sheet is only of non cognizable offences, then, in view of the aforesaid provision, the charge sheet should be treated as a complaint. The argument is well founded and the order taking cognizance/summoning is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court concerned. The Magistrate may pass an order taking cognizance if, he so chooses, by proceedings in this matter as a complaint case under Chapter A482 No. 40549 of 2024 2 XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He can also keep this fact in mind that in view of the proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:- "Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-- (a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint;" 7. With these observations, this application is finally disposed of. October 13, 2025 PS A482 No. 40549 of 2024 3 (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad