Offence Punishable U/S 506 IPC If Committed In Uttar Pradesh Is A Cognizable Offence: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an offence under Section 506 IPC (Punishment for criminal intimidation), if committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh is a cognizable offence.

To conclude thus, the Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi referred to a notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated 31st July 1989, notifying the declaration made by the then Hon'ble Governor of UP that any offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC when committed in Uttar Pradesh, shall be cognizable and non-bailable.

The Court also noted that the said notification had been upheld by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Meta Sewak Upadhyay versus State of U.P., 1995 CJ (All) 1158 and this decision was also approved by the Supreme Court in Aires Rodrigues versus Vishwajeet P. Rane (2017) 11 SCC 62.

The case in brief

Essentially, the informant/victim in the instant case moved an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC alleging that the applicant, one Rakesh Kumar Shukla 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/victim.

Pursuant to the directions of the CJM, Banda, an FIR was lodged and the probe was conducted by the Police and a charge sheet was filed by the police in 2007 against the applicant, u/S 504 and 506 IPC, which is currently pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda.

Challenging this charge sheet, the Applicant (Rakesh Kumar Shukla) moved the Court with a 482 CrPC Application.

It was primarily contended by the counsel for the applicant that originally the FIR 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, it was argued by him that the case against the applicant can only proceed as a complaint case.

It may be noted that this argument was made by the applicant in consonance with Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C, which states that 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.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court noted that although in the first schedule appended to the CrPC, Section 506 is mentioned to be a non-cognizable offence, the Uttar Pradesh Government, vide a Notification dated July 31, 1989, published in U.P. Gazette, made Section 506 IPC as cognizable and non-bailable.

Against this backdrop, the Court referred to Section 155 (4) of CrPC which states that 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.

Applying the mandate of Section 155 (4) of CrPC to the instant set of facts, the Court concluded that since 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 (as applicable in UP), the Case has to be treated as a cognizable one and has to be tried for both the offences in the manner prescribed for trial of cognizable offences.

With this, the application was rejected.

Case title - Rakesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 6

Click Here To Read/Download Order