HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6874 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The legal question is being decided in this matter, therefore, the notices to the opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with. 3. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the following relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned summoning order dated 16.01.2023 issued judicial magistrate court no. 3 Lakhimpur Kheri in criminal case arising out of Case crime no. 224/2022 State Vs. Naresh and others under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Sampurna Nagar District Kheri and impugned chargesheet no. 197/2022 dated 02.09.2022 alongwith entire criminal proceeding against the innocent petitioners pending in the court of additional chief judicial magistrate court no. 5 Kheri as contained in Annexure no. 1 and 2 to this petition in the interest of justice." 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that initially an FIR was lodged under Section 323, 504, 506, 324 of IPC and thereafter, the chargesheet was filed under Section 323 and 506 IPC. She submits that the learned trial court on the chargesheet; had taken cognizance under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC as the trial court has altered the Sections, which is not permissible under the law. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neelam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Naresh And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat versus Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 and has referred paragraph no.14, which is extracted here-in-under:- "14. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of Indian Penal Code on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offence into the chargesheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the chargesheet and as already stated, the magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Section 216, 218 or under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the case may be which means that after submission of the chargesheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the chargesheet." 6. Referring the aforesaid, she submits that the case of the present applicants are squarely covered with the ratio of the judgment above, and therefore, the order impugned dated 16.01.2023 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the matter on merit but he could not dispute the settle legal proposition of law, applicable in the present case. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and A482 No. 6874 of 2025 2 after perusal of record, it transpires that the learned trial court has erroneously taken cognizance under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC while altering the charges/ Sections, though the fact remains that the chargesheet was filed under Section 323 and 506 of IPC. The ratio of judgment of Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (supra) is very well applicable in this matter. Thus, there is a merit in the application, resultantly, the summoning order dated 16.01.2023 is hereby set aside. 9. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the learned trial court concerned to pass afresh order, considering the ratio of judgment in the case of Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (supra), within a period of 45 days form the date of this order. 10. The applicants are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the learned trial court. 11. Accordingly, this application is disposed of. August 26, 2025 Mohd. Sharif A482 No. 6874 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench