The Allahabad High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi while dealing with a matter of section 506 of the Indian Penal Code i.e Punishment for criminal intimidation remarked that offence punishable u/s 506 IPC if committed in Uttar Pradesh is a cognizable offence. (Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another)
Facts of the Case
The accused-applicant and the informant-opposite party no.2 are neighbors. The informant/respondent no.2 had filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the applicant alleging that the applicant had fired at him with the intention to kill him and when several persons from the locality gathered there, he went away threatening to kill the informant. In furtherance of the aforesaid application, a First Information Report was lodged.
The applicant by means of the present application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet in State vs. Rakesh Kumar Shukla under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda, which has been instituted by an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., filed by the opposite party number 2. (Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another)
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the applicant argued that although originally the first information report was lodged under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC but during investigation, the allegation of commission of offence under Section 307 IPC was found to be false and only a case under Sections 504 and 506 IPC was found to be made out against the applicant, both of which are non-cognizable offences and, therefore, the case against the applicant can only proceed as a complaint. In support of his submission, he has invited attention of the Court to the Explanation appended to Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench taking note of the facts of the case and the contentions of the parties noted, “In the present case, apart from an offence under Section 504, an offence under Section 506 IPC has also been found to have been committed. Although in the first schedule appended to the code of criminal procedure, 1973 Section 506 is mentioned to be a non-cognizable offence, the Uttar Pradesh Government has issued a Notification No. 777/VIII-9 4(2)- 87, dated July 31,1989, published in U.P. Gazette, Extra Part-4, Section (Kha), dated 2nd August, 1989 by which the Section 506 IPC was made cognizable and non bailable.”
The bench referring to the cases in this regard noted that the validity of the aforesaid notification dated 31st July 1989 having been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in Meta Sewak Upadhyay versus State of U.P., 1995 CJ (All) 1158, and the Full Bench decision having been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aires Rodrigues versus Vishwajeet P. Rane (2017) 11 SCC 62, there is no doubt that an offence under Section 506 IPC, if committed in the State of U.P. is a cognizable offence.
The bench taking note of the same observed, “Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/accused has been charged with commission of non-cognizable offences only based on the decision in Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma (Supra), is misconceived as in that case, the accused had been charged only with offence under Section 504 IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence whereas in the instant case, the applicant has been charged with the offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, one of which, i.e. the offence under Section 506 is a cognizable offence.”
The bench rejecting the application remarked, “In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, since the accused had been charged under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, he has to be tried for both the offences in the manner prescribed for trial of cognizable offences. Therefore, the application lacks merit and it is accordingly rejected.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
