HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22551 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 29.06.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 29.04.2025 alongwith entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1460 of 2025 (State Vs. Ramprakash), arising out of Case Crime No.76 of 2023, under Section 354, 354(B), 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Lahchura, District Jhansi, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.) Mauranipur, Jhasi. 3. While challenging the entire proceedings of the said case along with impugned chargesheet and cognizance order, learned counsel for applicant submitted that initially brother of applicant preferred civil case bearing Case No.227 of 2022 (Ganeshi Lal Vs. Ghanshyam Das and others) before learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Mauranipur, Jhansi wherein order of status quo was granted vide order dated 13.09.2022. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that the defendant in the said case, is the grandfather-in- law of opposite party no.2 who also preferred Case No.188 of 2022 (Ghanshyam Das Vs. Ganeshi Lal and others) for seeking cancellation of sale deed wherein no interim order was passed and both the cases are still pending to be decided finally by learned court concerned. Learned counsel for applicant also contended that immediately after order dated 13.09.2022, the present FIR was preferred on dated 17.04.2023 in pursuance of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as Case Crime No.76 of 2023. It has also been argued by learned counsel for Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramprakash .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) applicant that the FIR in which the applicant was implicated, date of incident has been shown as 18.11.2022 and the medical examination conducted on dated 26.04.2023 by concerned doctor by which it was reported that the injuries which were received by the injured, were of approximately within 24 hours. 4. 4. On the abovementioned injury report, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the implication of applicant in the present case i.e. Case Crime No.76 of 2023, is nothing but a counter-blast of the civil proceedings wherein interim order has been granted in favour of brother of applicant and when the grandfather-in-law of opposite party no.2 was failed to obtain any specific order in the civil proceedings, opposite party no.2 preferred to implicate applicant under criminal proceedings and as such, the entire proceedings of present case may be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but did not dispute the medico legal examination report dated 26.04.2023. 6. The arguments which have been raised by learned counsel for applicant, are based upon the documents appended along with the chargesheet and as such, process of issuing notice to opposite party no.2, is hereby dispensed with. 7. After having rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties as well as perusal of entire material available on record along with medico legal examination report dated 26.04.2023, it is crystal clear from the said medical report that all the injuries which were sustained by the injured, were of within 24 hours which cannot be co-related with the incident dated 18.11.2022 which is apparent from the statement recorded by one of the witnesses. Summoning of applicant in pursuance to Section 354, 354(B), 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, is based upon the documents appended along with the chargesheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer but unfortunately, the vital aspect which has been raised by learned counsel for applicant that how the offences as alleged can be attributed to applicant when the injuries caused upon the victim, were within 24 hours as per medical report dated 26.04.2023 whereas the incident is of 18.11.2022. 8. The grounds taken up by learned counsel for applicant, seem to be justified and as such, cognizance of offence took by learned Judicial NA528 No. 22551 of 2025 2 Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.) Mauranipur, Jhasi, is slightly not in consonance with the documents appended along with the chargesheet. 9. In view thereof, cognizance/summoning order dated 29.04.2025 is hereby set aside. Learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.) Mauranipur is hereby directed to take fresh cognizance of offence, if required, in light of the documents appended along with the chargesheet specifically medico legal examination report which was prepared by concerned doctor on dated 26.04.2023 through which it is reflected that the injuries were caused within 24 hours in respect of incident dated 18.11.2022. 10. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed in part. October 7, 2025 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 22551 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad