Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73530 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4181 of 2025 Applicant :- Chhotelal Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section - 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as B.N.S.S.) has been preferred against the order dated 19.12.2024, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Varanasi, in Complaint No. 2395 of 2023 (Chhotelal Vs. Ramjeet and Others), under Sections - 323, 325 I.P.C., Police Station - Mirzamurad, District - Varanasi, whereby the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 have been summoned for offences under Section - 323, 325 I.P.C. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is complainant of the aforesaid case and he has filed the said complaint alleging that on 23.06.2023 the opposite party Nos.2 to 6 have trespassed into his house and assaulted his brothers Kutthan Yadav and Bachau Yadav with 'lathi' and resultantly they have suffered injuries. Learned counsel submitted that injured Kutthan Yadav has sustained three injuries and the first injury is stitched wound of 7.0 cm at left side of head and it was a serious injury. Statement of concerned doctor was also referred, wherein he has inter alia stated that injury no.1 was of serious nature and if the injured Kutthan Yadav could not be provided proper treatment, it may have resulted into his death. It was submitted that in view of injuries sustained by injured Kutthan Yadav a prima facie case under Section - 308 I.P.C. is made out but the said opposite parties have been summoned only for offence under Sections - 323, 325 I.P.C. Referring to statements of witnesses, it was submitted that a prima facie case under Section - 308 I.P.C. is made out against opposite party No.2 to 6 and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. It is well settled that at the stage of summoning the Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record in order to consider whether a prima facie case is made out or not. The Magistrate is not bound to summon the proposed accused persons under all the sections mentioned in the complaint, rather it is to be considered as to what specific offences are made out. It would be pertinent to mention that instead of filing a revision against impugned order, the applicant has chosen to file this application under Section - 528 BNSS against impugned order. Thus, interference can only be made to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure ends of justice. 7. In the instant matter, the applicant / complainant has inter alia alleged that on 23.06.2023 the said opposite parties have assaulted his brothers Kutthan Yadav and Bachau Yadav and resultantly they have sustained serious injuries. In his statement recorded under Section - 202 Cr.P.C., injured Kutthan Yadav has inter alia stated that said opposite parties have trespassed into his house and assaulted him and that he has sustained serious injury at his head. In the C.T. scan report of injured Kutthan Yadav no midline shift or extra axial collection has been shown. Paranasal sinuses are normal. Similarly orbital and peri-orbital regions are normal. However, it was mentioned that there was "Mild hyperdense scalp swelling is seen overlying left fronto-pariental region. Boneage age is unremarkable. Right mastoid air cells are partially opacified." Considering entire facts and injuries sustained by the injurned persons, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed any patent illegality by not summoning the said opposite parties under Section - 308 I.P.C. Further, the applicant would be at liberty to raise the issue at the time of hearing on charge before the Trial Court. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of Court or miscarriage of justice. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad