Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121742 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** (SL No.12) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42361 of 2024 Applicant :- Kaushar Parveen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Arshad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in Court, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Mohd. Arshad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that he doesn't want to file counter affidavit in the instant matter. 4. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 21.10.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 1559 of 2023 (Kausar Praveen vs. Rehan and Others), P.S.- Raurawar, District- Aligarh, whereby the opposite party no.2 was summoned under Section 326 I.P.C. instead of Section 307 I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel of the applicant submits that the accused, opposite party no.2 Rehan, has caused a firearm injury on the chest of the son of the applicant herein on 21.01.2023, for which an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant herein before the trial court, which was later on treated as a complaint case. Thereafter, the complainant has made a statement before the trial court under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and the statement of other witnesses were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C, and during the process, the injury report of the victim was also brought on record, according to which the firearm injury was found on the chest of the injured person. Therefore, considering the entire material, the trial court has summoned the opposite party no.2 herein for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that since the firearm injury was caused on the chest, which is a vital part of the body, therefore there was a clear and categorical intention to murder the victim on the part of the opposite party no.2. Therefore, on the basis of the record as available before the trial court concerned, he ought to have been summoned for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. instead of Section 326 I.P.C. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant seeks quashing of the summoning order dated 21.10.2024 to the aforesaid extent and to modify the summoning order dated 21.10.2024, whereby the accused, opposite party no.2, is required to be summoned for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that even for the purpose of offence under Section 326 I.P.C, there has to be a grievous hurt, which is not existing in the instant case. Thus, when there was no grievous hurt, no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. can be made out under the given circumstances. Therefore, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that even the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is not made out against the opposite party no.2. 7. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that on 20.04.2023, the applicant herein has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging an incident dated 21.01.2023, when son of the applicant was going to work in the M.K. Meat Factory, where Rehan, Zeeshan, Farhan, Yusuf s/o Ashraf, Gufran s/o Irfan and Anwar s/o Umed, armed with lahti, danda, and country-made pistol, etc., started assaulting him and told him that he would not be allowed to work in any other meat factory and he would have to work under them. Thereupon, Zeeshan and Farhan caught hold of the son of the applicant herein and exhorted Rehan to kill him with a pistol upon which, Rehan fired from the pistol, and the injury was sustained by the son of the applicant on his chest with the said firearm and the son of the applicant fell down. Thereafter, Gufran, Anwar and Yusuf had badly beaten the son of the applicant with lathi. During the incident, the passersby came there and thereby saved the son of the applicant. When the applicant herein went to lodge a report before the police, the case could not be registered due to the intervention of the opposite parties and others. However, the police got the medical examination of the victim conducted. When no First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered, then the instant complaint case was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of the F.I.R. 8. Subsequently, the same was treated as a complaint case. Thereafter, the statements of witnesses were recorded, making out the categorical allegations that it was opposite party no.2, who had caused a firearm injury on the chest of the victim. The injury report was also produced by the complainant before the Magistrate. Since, from the material available on record it is prima facie apparent that the firearm injury was caused on the chest of the victim by the opposite party no.2. Therefore, it is apparent that there was a clear and categorical intention on the part of the opposite party no.2 to kill the victim. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has erred in summoning the opposite party no.2 under Section 326 I.P.C. instead of Section 307 I.P.C. 9. Therefore, the summoning order dated 21.10.2024 is modified to the extent that the opposite party no.2, namely accused Rehan, is summoned for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. 10. With the aforesaid modification, the instant application is disposed of. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad