Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71530 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6167 of 2025 Applicant :- Radha Sharan Alias Rasiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Vipin Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned brief holder for the State. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 19.09.2019 and cognizance/summoning order dated 08.09.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Case No. 951/IX/2020 (State Vs. Radha Sharan @ Rasiya), arising out of Case Crime No. 785 of 2019, under Section 323 I.P.C., Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant 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 contended that the order impugned has been challenged and reliance has been placed to Explanation 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is next contended that no permission was taken under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. and charge sheet has been submitted in non-cognizable offence. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in M/s Eicher Tractor Ltd. and others Vs. Harihar Singh and another reported in 2009 (64) ACC 296 as well as another reported Judgement of this Court in the case of Awadesh Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2008 (1) JIC 220 (All) in support of his contention. 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 placed 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." Learned A.G.A., vehemently, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. The aforesaid Explanation has been interpreted in a Single Judge decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2007 (9) ADJ 478 and Raheesuddin @ Kalwa and others vs State of U.P. and another, decided on 7.10.2010 passed in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.32258 of 2010. It is clear from above that all the offences punishable under Sections 323 I.P.C. are non-cognizable. Explanation to Section 2 (d) of the Cr. P. C. runs as under:- "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." In view of the said Explanation, report of the police officer, after investigation disclosing commission of non-cognizable offence is to be deemed to be a complaint and the police officer, who submitted the report has to be deemed to be a complainant. In other words the charge-sheet submitted by the police in a non- cognizable offence shall be treated to be a complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of complaint case shall be applicable to that case. In the present case from the material brought on record, it transpires that the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer instead of being treated as a complaint, has been treated as a State Case by the concerned Magistrate, which is not permissible under law. After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am of the view that the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant have force and are liable to be accepted. For the aforesaid reasons, the present case be treated to be a complaint case and the procedure prescribed for hearing of the complaint shall be followed by the court concerned before summoning the applicants. In view of the above, the order dated 08.09.2020 by which the concerned Magistrate has taken cognizance is quashed. With the aforesaid directions/observations, this application stands partly allowed. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad