Sumit Another v. State of U.P

3. The proceedings in question arise out of first information report registered under Section 174-A IPC on an application of a Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar.

4. Earlier, an order was passed by this Court on 01.03.2017 calling for a report from the concerned Magistrate, which is being reproduced below: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. The present application has been filed for setting aside the summoning order dated 30.4.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in case no. 22180 of 2016 as well as the revisional order dated 10.8.2016 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in revision no. 191 of 2015. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit dated 21.2.2017, which is taken on record, in which in paragraph no. 2 it is averred that certified copy of the stay order dated 4.8.2015 was extended vide order dated 13.10.2015 passed in criminal 482, Cr.P.C. application no. 19074 of 2013 (case no. 155 of 2010 under 2 A482 No. 4841 of 2017 Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act) and even though the stay order was operating the concerned Magistrate had taken cognizance on 30.4.2016 and passed summoning order in contravention of order of this Court. Let a report be called from the concerned Magistrate with regard to aforesaid argument raised by the learned counsel for the applicants within six weeks from today through Registrar General of this Court. List after six weeks on 17th April, 2017. Till the next date of listing no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. Let a copy of this order be placed before Registrar General of this Court for compliance."

5. The report of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 30.03.2017 is available on record. However, that report is not germane to the question of law being raised during the arguments and the decision of the case.

6. Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that it is a settled view of this Court that for any offence under Section 174-A IPC, a first information report cannot be lodged as the cognizance can only be taken on a complaint and not on a police report.

7. To support his submissions, he relies upon a Division Bench of judgment this Court dated 08.01.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17560 of 2023 (Sumit & Another vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.) and also an order dated 12.06.2024 passed in Application under Section 482 No.17137 of 2024 (Mohit Tomar vs. State of U.P. & Anr.), which has followed the said decision.

8. Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate submits that as per the ratio laid down in the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Sumit & Another (supra), no first information report could be lodged and the entire proceedings initiated pursuant to the said FIR, including the charge sheet and the summoning order, amount to abuse of process of law and the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed. For ready reference, paragraphs No.21 to 28 of the judgment of this Court in Sumit & Another (supra) are being reproduced hereinbelow: "21. However, in the present case the petitioners are charged for the offence u/s 174-A I.P.C. only, cognizance of which is barred u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the controversy in the present case is totally different from that of the judgement relied upon by 3 A482 No. 4841 of 2017 learned A.G.A. Similarly, in the judgement of Pradeep S. Wodeyar (supra), relied upon by learned A.G.A., the controversy was regarding irregularity of the cognizance, therefore, controversy in that case is also different from the present one.

22. It is clearly established that Section 174-A I.P.C. was inserted by way of amendment in 2005 between Sections 172 to 188, therefore, it is clear that Section 174-A I.P.C. is part of the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. for which court is barred from taking cognizance except upon a complaint by the court.

23. It is also relevant to mention here that cognizable offence itself permits the police to arrest a person without warrant, therefore, registration of F.I.R. of cognizable offence itself will affect the personal liberty of a person protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if legislature had intended to invoke the provision of cognizable offence only on the basis of filing written complaint then permitting to register F.I.R. for direct offence will definitely amount to interfere/deprive the personal liberty of a person. Therefore, once Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C prohibits the taking cognizance of the offence u/s 174-A I.P.C., except on the basis of written complaint, then permitting lodging of an F.I.R. u/s 174-A I.P.C. will amount to travesty of justice to the person concerned as the personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be deprived, except in accordance with law. Conclusion

24. Therefore, if the court itself cannot take cognizance of the offence u/s 174-A I.P.C. on the basis of police report, then lodging the F.I.R. u/s 174-A I.P.C. is futile, and will be against the provision of Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Therefore, proceedings u/s 174-A I.P.C. can be initiated only on the basis of written complaint of the court which had initiated proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.c. against the accused and F.I.R. is barred by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C.

25. This Court also holds that judgement of Single Benches of Allahabad High Court in Moti Singh Sikarwar (supra) as well as of Delhi High Court in Maneesh Goomer (supra) have not laid down correct law regarding interpretation of Section 174-A I.P.C. read with Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Decision

26. In view of the above conclusion, the F.I.R. dated 17.7.2022, lodged by respondent No.3 in Case Crime No. 162 of 2023, under Section 174-A I.P.C., P.S. Lodha, District Aligarh, is hereby quashed. However, it is open to concerned court to file a written complaint against the petitioners u/s 174-A I.P.C. as per Section 195(1) Cr.P.C., if there is no legal impediment.

27. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.

28. A copy of this judgement be sent to all District and Sessions Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh so as to apprise all judicial officers as well as copy to the Director, JTRI, Lucknow to sensitize the trainee judicial officers about the law laid down by this judgement."

9. Sri Dileep Kumar, in his further submissions, has contended that the dispute between the parties has already been settled by means of a compromise and the proceedings have come to an end in which, for non appearance, proceedings under Section 174-A IPC had been initiated. 4 A482 No. 4841 of 2017

10. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the legal position with respect to law laid down by this Court in Sumit & Another (supra).

11. In these circumstances and also keeping in view the compromise, that had resulted in quashing of the proceedings in the connected case being Application U/S 482 No.6840 of 2016, this Court has no other option but to quash the entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case.

12. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.22180 of 2016 (State vs. Anupm Agrawaal & Ors.) under Section 174-A IPC arising out of Case Crime No.601 of 2015, P.S. New Agra, District Agra as also the Charge sheet and composite cognizance taken and summoning order dated 30.04.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra and the revisional order dated 10.08.2016 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Revision No.191 of 2015 are hereby quashed.

13. The instant application stands allowed. October 15, 2025 Kushal (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. The proceedings in question arise out of first information report registered under Section 174-A IPC on an application of a Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar.

4. Earlier, an order was passed by this Court on 01.03.2017 calling for a report from the concerned Magistrate, which is being reproduced below: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. The present application has been filed for setting aside the summoning order dated 30.4.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in case no. 22180 of 2016 as well as the revisional order dated 10.8.2016 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in revision no. 191 of 2015. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit dated 21.2.2017, which is taken on record, in which in paragraph no. 2 it is averred that certified copy of the stay order dated 4.8.2015 was extended vide order dated 13.10.2015 passed in criminal 482, Cr.P.C. application no. 19074 of 2013 (case no. 155 of 2010 under 2 A482 No. 4841 of 2017 Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act) and even though the stay order was operating the concerned Magistrate had taken cognizance on 30.4.2016 and passed summoning order in contravention of order of this Court. Let a report be called from the concerned Magistrate with regard to aforesaid argument raised by the learned counsel for the applicants within six weeks from today through Registrar General of this Court. List after six weeks on 17th April, 2017. Till the next date of listing no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. Let a copy of this order be placed before Registrar General of this Court for compliance."

5. The report of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 30.03.2017 is available on record. However, that report is not germane to the question of law being raised during the arguments and the decision of the case.

6. Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that it is a settled view of this Court that for any offence under Section 174-A IPC, a first information report cannot be lodged as the cognizance can only be taken on a complaint and not on a police report.

7. To support his submissions, he relies upon a Division Bench of judgment this Court dated 08.01.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17560 of 2023 (Sumit & Another vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.) and also an order dated 12.06.2024 passed in Application under Section 482 No.17137 of 2024 (Mohit Tomar vs. State of U.P. & Anr.), which has followed the said decision.

8. Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate submits that as per the ratio laid down in the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Sumit & Another (supra), no first information report could be lodged and the entire proceedings initiated pursuant to the said FIR, including the charge sheet and the summoning order, amount to abuse of process of law and the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed. For ready reference, paragraphs No.21 to 28 of the judgment of this Court in Sumit & Another (supra) are being reproduced hereinbelow: "21. However, in the present case the petitioners are charged for the offence u/s 174-A I.P.C. only, cognizance of which is barred u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the controversy in the present case is totally different from that of the judgement relied upon by 3 A482 No. 4841 of 2017 learned A.G.A. Similarly, in the judgement of Pradeep S. Wodeyar (supra), relied upon by learned A.G.A., the controversy was regarding irregularity of the cognizance, therefore, controversy in that case is also different from the present one.

22. It is clearly established that Section 174-A I.P.C. was inserted by way of amendment in 2005 between Sections 172 to 188, therefore, it is clear that Section 174-A I.P.C. is part of the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. for which court is barred from taking cognizance except upon a complaint by the court.

23. It is also relevant to mention here that cognizable offence itself permits the police to arrest a person without warrant, therefore, registration of F.I.R. of cognizable offence itself will affect the personal liberty of a person protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if legislature had intended to invoke the provision of cognizable offence only on the basis of filing written complaint then permitting to register F.I.R. for direct offence will definitely amount to interfere/deprive the personal liberty of a person. Therefore, once Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C prohibits the taking cognizance of the offence u/s 174-A I.P.C., except on the basis of written complaint, then permitting lodging of an F.I.R. u/s 174-A I.P.C. will amount to travesty of justice to the person concerned as the personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be deprived, except in accordance with law. Conclusion

24. Therefore, if the court itself cannot take cognizance of the offence u/s 174-A I.P.C. on the basis of police report, then lodging the F.I.R. u/s 174-A I.P.C. is futile, and will be against the provision of Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Therefore, proceedings u/s 174-A I.P.C. can be initiated only on the basis of written complaint of the court which had initiated proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.c. against the accused and F.I.R. is barred by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C.

25. This Court also holds that judgement of Single Benches of Allahabad High Court in Moti Singh Sikarwar (supra) as well as of Delhi High Court in Maneesh Goomer (supra) have not laid down correct law regarding interpretation of Section 174-A I.P.C. read with Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Decision

26. In view of the above conclusion, the F.I.R. dated 17.7.2022, lodged by respondent No.3 in Case Crime No. 162 of 2023, under Section 174-A I.P.C., P.S. Lodha, District Aligarh, is hereby quashed. However, it is open to concerned court to file a written complaint against the petitioners u/s 174-A I.P.C. as per Section 195(1) Cr.P.C., if there is no legal impediment.

27. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.

28. A copy of this judgement be sent to all District and Sessions Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh so as to apprise all judicial officers as well as copy to the Director, JTRI, Lucknow to sensitize the trainee judicial officers about the law laid down by this judgement."

9. Sri Dileep Kumar, in his further submissions, has contended that the dispute between the parties has already been settled by means of a compromise and the proceedings have come to an end in which, for non appearance, proceedings under Section 174-A IPC had been initiated. 4 A482 No. 4841 of 2017

10. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the legal position with respect to law laid down by this Court in Sumit & Another (supra).

11. In these circumstances and also keeping in view the compromise, that had resulted in quashing of the proceedings in the connected case being Application U/S 482 No.6840 of 2016, this Court has no other option but to quash the entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case.

12. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.22180 of 2016 (State vs. Anupm Agrawaal & Ors.) under Section 174-A IPC arising out of Case Crime No.601 of 2015, P.S. New Agra, District Agra as also the Charge sheet and composite cognizance taken and summoning order dated 30.04.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra and the revisional order dated 10.08.2016 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Revision No.191 of 2015 are hereby quashed.

13. The instant application stands allowed. October 15, 2025 Kushal (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad