Offences Can’t Be Added Or Subtracted In Chargesheet At Stage Of Taking Cognizance: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court observed that offences cannot be either added or subtracted from the police report by accepting the claim of the complainant at the stage of taking cognizance.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj, while relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Gujarat Vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (2013 SC), observed, “Consideration of the final report at the stage of taking cognizance of offences is for a limited purposes and while analyzing the similar issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, 2013 (0) Supreme (SC) 1070, held that the offences cannot be either added or subtracted in the police report at the stage of taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C… this Court has no hesitation in holding that only to the limited extent, whereby the claim of the complainant has been accepted by taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 307 I.P.C. is not sustainable, thus, to that extent, the impugned order dated 17.8.2023 is set aside.”
Advocate Ashutosh Sharma appeared for the Appellants whereas GA Subedar Mishra appeared for the Respondents.
Appellants herein have filed separate appeals under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘Atrocities Act, 1989’) to challenge the impugned order passed by a Special Judge taking cognizance in a case under Section 147, 148, 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, 1989.
The Complainant-respondent filed an FIR where it was alleged that the Appellants had attacked the complainant with sticks, rods and sharp-edged weapons. The alleged assault resulted in a head injury and fractures.
The Appellants submitted that the complainant had moved an application praying that cognizance under Sections 325 and 307 of the IPC should also be taken, which was allowed by the judge.
With respect to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the Atrocities Act, 1989, the Court said that many orders like refusing or granting bail to an accused, discharge of accused or framing charges against an accused are not appealable as per the provisions of Cr.P.C., but by Section 14-A of Atrocities Act, 1989 even an appeal lies against such orders by following the procedure of adjudication of appeals enshrined under Chapter XXIX Cr.P.C.
The Court then discussed whether the inherent powers of this Court envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to challenge such an appealable order as well as the entire criminal proceedings.
“It is abundantly clear that even if, Section 14A “Atrocities Act, 1989” provides for a remedy of appeal against an order taking cognizance of the offences, but in a given case, which falls within the guidelines and parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the said remedy can be availed by the litigant, and availability of alternative statutory remedy cannot be a ground for refusal to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if the merits of the case makes out a case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeals while setting aside the impugned order of cognizance.
Cause Title: Smt Usha and Ors. v. State of U.P and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024: AHC:100224)
Appearances:
Appellants: Advocate Ashutosh Sharma
Respondents: GA Subedar Mishra
