Allahabad High Court
VINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
A magistrate is bound to take cognizance only of the offences mentioned in the charge‑sheet and cannot add sections such as IPC 420 at that stage.
Summary
Vinod Kumar appealed to the Allahabad High Court against a summoning order of a Special Judge who had taken cognizance only of offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, despite the FIR also alleging offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The appellant argued that the magistrate should have taken cognizance of Section 420 IPC as well. The State contended that the magistrate is bound to the sections mentioned in the charge‑sheet filed by the investigating officer. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakishan Varde (AIR 2014 SC 620), which holds that a magistrate cannot add or omit sections at the stage of taking cognizance and may raise any grievance only at the charge‑framing stage. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the magistrate’s action and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a magistrate can take cognizance of offences not specified in the charge‑sheet filed by the investigating officer.
- Whether the appellant can seek amendment of the cognizance at the stage of taking cognizance.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- cognizance
- charge-sheet
- SC/ST Act
- IPC
- criminal procedure
- appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6895 of 2025
Vinod Kumar
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh Bais
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Case was called out in the revised list. Despite service of notice upon
opposite party no. 2, no one has appeared on his behalf.
2. Heard Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh
Bais, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned A.G.A. for the State,
and perused the entire record.
3. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been
preferred seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 15.10.2024
passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act),
Saharanpur, whereby cognizance has been taken only under Sections 504
and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act on the basis of the
charge-sheet dated 21.05.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 130 of 2024,
Police Station–Sadar Bazar, District–Saharanpur.
4. The solitary submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is
that the FIR was lodged under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC and Section
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, but the charge-sheet was submitted only under
Sections 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. It is
contended that the Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance under Section
420 IPC as well.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the appellant and submitted that since the charge-sheet was filed
by the Investigating Officer under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and Section
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, the Magistrate was bound to take cognizance
only for the offences mentioned therein.
6. In State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakishan Varde;AIR 2014 SC 620
, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that at the time of taking cognizance,
the Magistrate has no right to include or exclude any sections and is bound
to take cognizance of the sections mentioned in the charge-sheet filed by the
CRLA No. 6895 of 2025
2
Investigating Officer.
7. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the Magistrate has not taken cognizance under Section 420 IPC is
concerned, he may raise his grievance at the time of framing of charge..
8. In the present case, since the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections
504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, the Magistrate has
taken cognizance only in respect of the said offences.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the Magistrate has not committed any
illegality or infirmity in taking cognizance under Sections 504 and 506 IPC
and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
10. The criminal appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
May 7, 2026
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…