ANURAN RASTOGI AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 336 · Decided: 07-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANURAN RASTOGI AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 7, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
> 
c 
ss.190 and 193-----Cognizance of offence u/ss. 498A, 323 and 504 !PC 
and ss.3 a_nd 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by Magistrate-Application by 
informant that on the basis of evidence collected by Investigating Officer, 
case was triable by Sessions Judge under ss.406 and 307 !PC-Magistrate 
was of view that only after adducing evidence if offence u/ss.406, 307 is made 
out then cognizance under these sections would be taken-Aggrieved 
D informant filed petition before High Court wherein it was held that Magistrate_ 
could consider offences for which accused has to be tried, at the time of 
framing charge and further observed that Magistrate had not applied his 
r 
mind to merits of the points raised by informant-On appeal held, Magistrate 
' 
not bound to take cognizance of offence indicated in the police report-High 
E 
Court having held that proper stage is stage of framing charge, could not 
have found fault with the Magistrate's observation to similar effect. 
On the basis of the information given by respondent no. 2, a case of 
alleged commission of offence punishable under ss. 498-A, 323, 504 IPC, 1860 
read with ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was registered. The 
F 
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused 
persons. 
Respondent no. 2 filed a petition before the High Court stating that the 
materials cnllected by the investigating officer and contained in the case diary 
itself justified trial under ss.307 and 406 IPC and that by addition of these 
G sections, the case was triable by the Court of Sessions. High Court was of 
the view that the Magistrate had not applied his mind to the mer its of the 
points raised by the informant. The Magistrate was not bound by the 
+ ' 
description in the police report and while taking cognizance he could make 
,. 
variation if there was sufficient material before him. The High Court felt that 
H 
336 
}-
ANURANRASTOGlv. STATEOFU.P. [PASAYAT,J.] 
337 
when the informant claimed that the materials contained in the case diary A 
indicated commission of certain offences which make it case triable 
exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate ought to have considered 
and decided at the time of framing charges, the points so that unnecessary 
proceedings were not taken up and ultimately the case was to go before the 
Sessions Judge. Direction was given to consider and decide the matter afresh. 
Hence the present appeal. 
B 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court has unnecessarily made certain observations 
which lead to contrary conclusions. Having held that the proper stage for 
consideration is stage of framing charge, there was no necessity for further C 
observations and/or directions. It rightly held that the Magistrate is not bound 
to take cognizance of the offences indicated in the police report That being 
so, the ultimate directions of the High Court materially differ from its earlier 
conclusions. The Magistrate has to consider material at the time of framing 
charge. Needless to say he will pass necessary orders if according to him the D 
case is triable by the Court of Sessions. [Paras 6, 71 [338-H; 339-B) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment/Final Order dated 8.2.2006 of the High Court of E 
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Cr!. Misc. Case No. 
35012006. 
Gaurav Bhatia and Abhishek Chaudhary for the Appellants. 
P. Narasimhan for the Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned G 
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court by the impugned 
order partly accepted the challenge made by the respondent no. I, the informant, 
in Ciime no.53 of2005. 
3. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows: 
H 
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
4. On the basis of the information given by respondent no.2 case of 
alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 of 
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the '!PC') read with Sections 3 and 4 
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short 'Dowry Act') was registered. 
After investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants. The magistr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.