Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22849 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3305 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Raj Chanana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Pradeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with. 3. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant assailing the order dated 07.04.2023, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI (U.P.), Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 48 of 2019 - Ram Raj Chanana Vs. Vinod Chanana, arising out of Case Crime No. 410 of 2007, under Sections 504, 506, 325 IPC, whereby he has rejected the protest petition preferred by the applicant against the final report submitted by the Police and issued summons under Section 504, 506 and 325 IPC and order dated 06.02.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (PC Act), Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 285 of 2023, whereby the order dated 07.04.2023 has been upheld. 4. The petitioner was aggrieved by order dated 07.04.2023, to the extent that summons have been issued by the Court concerned only under Sections 504, 506 and 325 IPC and did not include Section 307 IPC, accordingly, the revision preferred by the applicant before the Special Judge (PC Act), Lucknow, has been rejected on 06.02.2025 and both the above orders have been assailed in the present petition. 5. Only grievance raised by the applicant is that the trial Court should have while entertaining the said complaint case should have issued summons to the accused under Section 307 IPC amongst other Sections stated therein, in the light of the fact that there were sufficient evidence and material which had come forth in the protest application preferred by the applicant as well as in the investigation report submitted by the Police and accordingly has assailed the validity of the said orders. 6. 6. The revisional Court had duly considered the arguments raised by the applicant and did not find any merit and further had also considered the fact that the injuries sustained by the revisionist were only on thigh region and not on any vital part of body and has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 505 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749, and rejected the revision. 7. Before this Court, the only ground urged by the applicant was with regard to exclusion of Section 307 IPC in order dated 07.04.2023. At the very outset, a query was put to learned counsel for the applicant as to whether at the stage of summons, mention of any particular Section of IPC would be materially vital case of the applicant, considering the fact that at the stage of summons, inquiry is limited to ascertain "as to whether ingredients of cognizable offence are present or not". In case trial Court is satisfied that facts disclose occurrence of cognizable offence then summons are issued and trial proceedings commence. As to the charge under which accused is to be tried, is at the subsequent stage of trial and at the stage of framing of the charge after taking into account entire facts, discretion is exercised by the Magistrate to frame charge under particular Section. 8. Accordingly, from the above, this Court is of the considered view that mention of particular Section in the summoning order would not either invalidate the order or render the same to be interferred by the superior Court. This aspect of the matter would be adequately looked into at the stage of framing of charges. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant also does not dispute with the said legal proposition but submits that it should be kept open before the trial Court to consider charge under Section 307 IPC. 10. In the light of above, specially this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders, but the grievance if any, of the applicant with regard to accused being charged of a particular offence is an issue which can be raised at the appropriate stage of the trial. 11. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the controversy, with the aforesaid direction, present application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench