Counsel for v. Advocate

assisted by Sri Yashaswin Venugopal Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Prateek Tyagi, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-O.P. no.1.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that he has filed the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause of the application.

3. The relief which has been mentioned in the application is delineated below:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the instant 482 Application and to set aside/quash the 2 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 impugned cognizance & summoning order dated

05.02.2021 (Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit) passed in Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2021 (State Vs. Dr. Surendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj as well as the impugned charge sheet dated 10.10.2020 (Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit) under sections 143 & 188 IPC, in Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2021 (State Vs. Dr. Surendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District - Prayagraj, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad; otherwise, the applicants will suffer irreparable loss. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C., this Hon'ble Court may also be graciously pleased to stay the effect & operation of the impugned cognizance & summoning order dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit) passed in Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2021 (State Vs. Dr. Surendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District -Prayagraj as well as the impugned charge sheet dated 10.10.2020 (Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit) under sections 143 & 188 IPC, in Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2021 (State vs. Dr. Surendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC, Police Station-Civil Lines, District - Prayagraj, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad; otherwise, the applicants will suffer irreparable loss. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C., this Hon'ble Court may also be graciously pleased to stay further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2021 (State Vs. Dr. Surendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC, Police 3 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad; otherwise, the applicants will suffer irreparable loss. And/or, pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts & circumstances of the case; otherwise, the applicants will suffer irreparable loss."

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the alleged incident occurred on 02.01.2020 and in respect of that; an FIR has been lodged as Case Crime No.0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC. He further submits that as per Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., no First Information Report (FIR) under the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. as well as Non Cognizable Report (NCR) under the provisions of Section 155(1) Cr.P.C. can be registered as the Court cannot take cognizance except on the written complaint of the police. He further submits that after investigation police added one more section i.e. 143 IPC as the applicants were allegedly found to be members of an unlawful assembly. He submits that the chargesheet has been filed on 10.10.2020. He further submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad has took cognizance on 05.02.2021 only for offence under section 143 IPC, which is after expiry of one year from the date of alleged incident i.e. 02.01.2020. He further submits that the offence under Section 143 IPC, under which cognizance has been taken, is punishable only upto 'six months'. He further submits that the trial court has mentioned in the cognizance order dated 05.02.2021 that cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC can only be taken upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant. He submits that taking of cognizance under section 188 IPC is 4 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 barred under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. He further submits that even the Chief Judicial Magistrate could not take cognizance under Section 143 IPC also as it is time barred as per provisions of Section 467, 468, 469 Cr.P.C. He further submits that as per Section 469(1)(a) Cr.P.C., "the period of limitation, in relation to offence, shall commence (a) on the date of offence i.e. on 02.01.2020 and as per section 468 (1) Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of an offence after expiry of period of limitation i.e. as per Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C. one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and in this case, cognizance has been taken after one year i.e. 05.02.2021, which is in violation of Section 468 Cr.P.C. as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. For ready reference, Sections 143 and 188 of IPC, Sections 195, 467, 468 and 469 of Cr.P.C.(corresponding Sections 215, 513, 514 and 515 of B.N.S.S.) are delineated below :- Section 143 of IPC. Punishment.—Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. x x x x Section 188 of IPC. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.—Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 5 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 x x x x Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence No Court shall take cognizance—

1. (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

2. (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

2. Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint; Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.

3. In clause (b) of Sub-Section (1), the term “Court” means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.

4. For the purposes of clause (b) of Sub-Section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a civil Court from whose decrees no appeal 6 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate; Provided that— a. where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; b. where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. x x x x Section 467 of Cr.P.C. For the purposes of this Chapter, unless the context otherwise, requires, period of limitation means the period specified in section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence. Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation

1. Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-Section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

2. The period of limitation shall be—

1. six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

2. one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

3. three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

3. For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. Section 469 of Cr.P.C.

1. The period of limitation, in relation to an offence, shall commence,

1. on the date of the offence; or

2. where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or

3. where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police 7 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier.

2. In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded.

5. This Court is also pasting the relevant portion of the FIR, Chargesheet and cognizance order for ready reference, asking the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad as well as the present Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to explain as to why cognizance has been taken in the instant matter going beyond the provisions of law mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as for violating the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and yet its trial is also going on. They shall submit their explanation within a period of two weeks from today. 8 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 9 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024

6. The C.J.M. Allahabad shall also communicate to the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj to inform Circle Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Police, Station House Officers and other police officers to follow the provisions and the S.H.O, P.S. Civil Lines, Prayagraj and concerned Circle Officer and Assistant Commissioner of Police shall also fil instructions.

7. So far as merits of the matter is concerned, the matter requires consideration.

8. List this case as fresh for further hearing on

06.01.2026.

9. Until further orders of this Court, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2021 (State 10 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 Vs. Dr. Surendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District -Prayagraj as well as the impugned charge sheet dated 10.10.2020 (Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit) under sections 143 & 188 IPC, in aforesaid case, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, shall remain stayed.

10. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the concerned trial court for information and necessary compliance. Learned A.G.A. is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned police officers for necessary compliance. (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) December 11, 2025 Manish Himwan

assisted by Sri Yashaswin Venugopal Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Prateek Tyagi, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-O.P. no.1.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that he has filed the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause of the application.

3. The relief which has been mentioned in the application is delineated below:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the instant 482 Application and to set aside/quash the 2 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 impugned cognizance & summoning order dated

05.02.2021 (Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit) passed in Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2021 (State Vs. Dr. Surendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj as well as the impugned charge sheet dated 10.10.2020 (Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit) under sections 143 & 188 IPC, in Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2021 (State Vs. Dr. Surendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District - Prayagraj, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad; otherwise, the applicants will suffer irreparable loss. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C., this Hon'ble Court may also be graciously pleased to stay the effect & operation of the impugned cognizance & summoning order dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit) passed in Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2021 (State Vs. Dr. Surendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District -Prayagraj as well as the impugned charge sheet dated 10.10.2020 (Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit) under sections 143 & 188 IPC, in Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2021 (State vs. Dr. Surendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC, Police Station-Civil Lines, District - Prayagraj, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad; otherwise, the applicants will suffer irreparable loss. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C., this Hon'ble Court may also be graciously pleased to stay further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2021 (State Vs. Dr. Surendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC, Police 3 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad; otherwise, the applicants will suffer irreparable loss. And/or, pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts & circumstances of the case; otherwise, the applicants will suffer irreparable loss."

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the alleged incident occurred on 02.01.2020 and in respect of that; an FIR has been lodged as Case Crime No.0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC. He further submits that as per Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., no First Information Report (FIR) under the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. as well as Non Cognizable Report (NCR) under the provisions of Section 155(1) Cr.P.C. can be registered as the Court cannot take cognizance except on the written complaint of the police. He further submits that after investigation police added one more section i.e. 143 IPC as the applicants were allegedly found to be members of an unlawful assembly. He submits that the chargesheet has been filed on 10.10.2020. He further submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad has took cognizance on 05.02.2021 only for offence under section 143 IPC, which is after expiry of one year from the date of alleged incident i.e. 02.01.2020. He further submits that the offence under Section 143 IPC, under which cognizance has been taken, is punishable only upto 'six months'. He further submits that the trial court has mentioned in the cognizance order dated 05.02.2021 that cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC can only be taken upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant. He submits that taking of cognizance under section 188 IPC is 4 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 barred under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. He further submits that even the Chief Judicial Magistrate could not take cognizance under Section 143 IPC also as it is time barred as per provisions of Section 467, 468, 469 Cr.P.C. He further submits that as per Section 469(1)(a) Cr.P.C., "the period of limitation, in relation to offence, shall commence (a) on the date of offence i.e. on 02.01.2020 and as per section 468 (1) Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of an offence after expiry of period of limitation i.e. as per Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C. one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and in this case, cognizance has been taken after one year i.e. 05.02.2021, which is in violation of Section 468 Cr.P.C. as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. For ready reference, Sections 143 and 188 of IPC, Sections 195, 467, 468 and 469 of Cr.P.C.(corresponding Sections 215, 513, 514 and 515 of B.N.S.S.) are delineated below :- Section 143 of IPC. Punishment.—Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. x x x x Section 188 of IPC. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.—Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 5 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 x x x x Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence No Court shall take cognizance—

1. (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

2. (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

2. Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint; Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.

3. In clause (b) of Sub-Section (1), the term “Court” means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.

4. For the purposes of clause (b) of Sub-Section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a civil Court from whose decrees no appeal 6 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate; Provided that— a. where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; b. where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. x x x x Section 467 of Cr.P.C. For the purposes of this Chapter, unless the context otherwise, requires, period of limitation means the period specified in section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence. Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation

1. Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-Section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

2. The period of limitation shall be—

1. six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

2. one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

3. three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

3. For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. Section 469 of Cr.P.C.

1. The period of limitation, in relation to an offence, shall commence,

1. on the date of the offence; or

2. where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or

3. where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police 7 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier.

2. In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded.

5. This Court is also pasting the relevant portion of the FIR, Chargesheet and cognizance order for ready reference, asking the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad as well as the present Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to explain as to why cognizance has been taken in the instant matter going beyond the provisions of law mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as for violating the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and yet its trial is also going on. They shall submit their explanation within a period of two weeks from today. 8 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 9 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024

6. The C.J.M. Allahabad shall also communicate to the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj to inform Circle Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Police, Station House Officers and other police officers to follow the provisions and the S.H.O, P.S. Civil Lines, Prayagraj and concerned Circle Officer and Assistant Commissioner of Police shall also fil instructions.

7. So far as merits of the matter is concerned, the matter requires consideration.

8. List this case as fresh for further hearing on

06.01.2026.

9. Until further orders of this Court, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3008 of 2021 (State 10 A482 No. - 44454 of 2024 Vs. Dr. Surendra Pal Singh & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2020 under section 188 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District -Prayagraj as well as the impugned charge sheet dated 10.10.2020 (Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit) under sections 143 & 188 IPC, in aforesaid case, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, shall remain stayed.

10. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the concerned trial court for information and necessary compliance. Learned A.G.A. is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned police officers for necessary compliance. (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) December 11, 2025 Manish Himwan