Allahabad High Court
Dr. Rubi Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:154820
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 728 of 2025
Dr. Rubi Verma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Mahendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Shri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State.
2. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to the opposite party No. 2.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 32672 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 360 of 2022 (State versus Dr. Rubi Verma) under Section 323 I.P.C., Police Station-Alapur, District-Budaun pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Budaun as well as chargesheet dated 05.04.2023, cognizance order dated 15.10.2024 and summoning order dated 22.11.2024.
4. The case of the applicant is that a N.C.R. came to be lodged against the opposite party no. 2 on 16.09.2022 under Section 323 I.P.C. being N.C.R. No. 0033 of 2022 which transformed into first information report dated 18.09.2022 at 22:14 hours being F.I.R. No. 360 of 2022 registered under Sections 308 I.P.C. 3/1(Da), 3/1(Dha) of the S.C./S.T. against the applicant which culminated into chargesheet against the applicant dated 05.04.2023 under Section 323 I.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that once the chargesheet stood submitted under Section 323 I.P.C. then the case ought to have been proceeded as a complaint case not a State case in view of the provisions contained under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.
6. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Application under Section 482 No. 32219 of 2022 (Rama Shankar Upadhayay And 3 Others versus State of U.P. And Another).
7. For the ready reference, the relevant extract of the provisions are being quoted hereinbelow:-
"Explanation to Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C.- 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;
Section 155 Cr.P.C.- Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases:-
(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.
Section 190 Cr.P.C. - Cognizance of offences by Magistrates :-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence -
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.
Section 200 Cr.P.C.- 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 the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192:"
8. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand could not dispute the said factual and legal proposition and according to him Section 323 I.P.C. is not cognizable offence. Thus, it ought to have been proceeded as a Complaint Case under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.
9. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
10. Since, Section 323 I.P.C. is non cognizable offence thus in view of the opinion expressed the same is to be treated as a complaint case and not as a State Case.
11. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, if the order taking cognizance, is set aside.
12. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, the order impugned i.e. order of taking cognizance is set aside. The trial court shall proceed with the case as a complaint case under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court may also take into consideration the Proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C.
13. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 2, 2025
SY
