HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11673 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following main prayer :- "(i) Issue a suitable direction to set aside the impugned order dated 08.05.2024 passed by CJ.M., Bijnor in Criminal Case No.35663 of 2022 (State Vs. Arshad Ahmed and others) arising out of Crime No.201 of 2022 under section 498-A, 308, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Najibabad, District-Bijnor as well as to set aside the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 passed by Session Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Revision no.153 of 2024. (ii) Issue a suitable direction to the C.J.M., Bijnor to consider the entire investigation report including the further investigation report and Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 23.05.2023 compositely and thereafter pass fresh order in accordance with law." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.2- Naim Ahmad lodged an FIR against the petitioner and other family members in Case Crime No.201 2022 on 17.5.2022 at Police Station- Najibabad, District Bijnor under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 313, 377, 427 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Case was investigated and charge-sheet against the petitioner/accused Arshad Ahmed was submitted under Section 498-A, 308, 323, 324, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Charge-sheet against the remaining two accused Irshad Ahmad and Farzana was submitted under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Arshad Ahmed .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Thereafter, an order against the accused persons was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor on 29.11.2022 taking cognizance upon the charge-sheet. Cognizance was taken against accused Arshad Ahmad for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 307, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, along with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Cognizance was also taken against accused Irshad for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 308, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, along with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, cognizance was taken against accused Farzana for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, along with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed illegality in taking cognizance of offences under Section 308 IPC against the petitioner/Arshad because charge-sheet against him was not submitted under Section 308 IPC. Therefore, the order dated 29.11.2022 was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.508 of 2022 (Arshad Ahmed & Anr. vs. State of U.P.). Said criminal revision was allowed on 20.2.2023 by setting aside the order dated 29.11.2022 and the learned trial court was directed to pass a fresh order in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, (2014) 3 SCC 659 wherein it has been held that a Magistrate has no power to add or subtract any Section at the time of taking cognizance, rather he is bound to take cognizance under the Sections in which the charge-sheet has been submitted. Learned counsel further submitted that in the meanwhile a direction for further investigation was passed pursuant to which a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons on 23.5.2022 for offences under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed by the learned trial court on 17.7.2023 and he took cognizance against the accused Arshad for offences under Section 498-A, 308, 323, 324, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Cognizance was taken for offences under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the remaining accused Irshad and Farzana. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate was bound to pass the cognizance order by considering the preliminary A227 No. 11673 of 2024 2 police report as well as the supplementary report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before passing an order of cognizance. However, the learned Magistrate has failed to consider both charge-sheets together and to reach at a conclusion by conjointly reading the evidences collected during the initial investigation as well as the further investigation. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.7.2023, the accused preferred Criminal Revision No.347 of 2023 (Irshad Ahmed & Ors. vs. State of U.P.). Said criminal revision was allowed on 20.10.2023 and the order dated 17.7.2023 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order pursuant to the direction given in order dated 20.2.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.508 of 2022. 6. Learned counsel submitted that despite a clear direction passed in the aforesaid Criminal Revision No.347 of 2023, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 8.5.2024, has again taken cognizance against the petitioner/accused Irshad offences under Section 498-A, 308,323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Against the aforesaid order dated 8.5.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.35663 of 2022, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.153 of 2024 (Arshad Ahmed vs. State of U.P. & Anr.). However, the said criminal revision was dismissed on 08-05-2024 and it was observing that the learned CJM has acted well while taking cognizance on both the charge-sheets. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 is very much specific that supplementary report has to be treated as integral part of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and a Magistrate is bound to consider both reports together before passing an order of cognizance. However, the learned trial court as well as the revisional court have failed to consider that both reports were not read conjointly by the learned CJM at the time of passing an order of taking cognizance dated 8.5.2024. 8. Having heard learned counsel and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the legal position as laid down in Vinay Tyagi ( Supra) is well settled that the Magistrate is required to consider the primary police report as well as the supplementary report filed under Section 173(2) A227 No. 11673 of 2024 3 Cr.P.C. conjointly while taking cognizance. The requirement is of application of judicial mind to the entire material collected during investigation, and not of passing a detailed or elaborate order discussing each piece of evidence. 9. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the learned Magistrate had, at the initial stage vide order dated 29.11.2022, duly considered the injury report of the injured Nazia Parveen, which disclosed multiple injuries including incised wounds on vital parts and fracture on the frontal sinus, and on that basis formed an opinion regarding the nature of offences. The said material formed part of the case record and continued to remain intact during further investigation. 10. Subsequently, while passing the impugned order dated 08.05.2024 after submission of the supplementary charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate has made reference to the medical evidence, which clearly indicates that the earlier material was present in his consideration. Mere absence of elaborate discussion in the subsequent order does not lead to the inference that the earlier material was ignored, particularly when the same was neither contradicted nor diluted in the further investigation. 11. It is also pertinent that the supplementary report does not supersede the earlier report but is an addition thereto, and both are required to be read as a composite whole. In the facts of the present case, since no new material has emerged in further investigation so as to displace the earlier medical evidence, the formation of opinion by the Magistrate cannot be said to suffer from non-application of mind. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 08.05.2024 and it cannot be held that both reports were not considered conjointly. The revisional court has also rightly affirmed the said view and no perversity or jurisdictional error is made out warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. The impugned order dated 8.5.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate and the A227 No. 11673 of 2024 4 order dated 7.6.2024 passed by the revisional court are hereby upheld. April 23, 2026 SK A227 No. 11673 of 2024 5 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad