HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1324 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Sri Shailendu Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Sri R.K.Singh, learned AGA for the State as also perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the order dated 21.9.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mainpuri and order dated 10.10.2024 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8448 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0177 of 2023, Police Station Alau, District Mainpuri. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have been falsely implicated by the informant, Asim, who lodged the FIR in Case Crime No. 0208 of 2021, under Sections 307, 323 and 504 IPC, at Police Station Alau Police Station, District Mainpuri. It is alleged in the FIR that the brother of the informant, namely Safir, was shot by petitioner Nazim, while the other co-petitioners facilitated the act by catching hold of the injured.It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, statements of the informant as well as the injured were recorded on two occasions, and in both statements, material improvements were made, which cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version. Upon investigation, the allegations were found to be false and a closure report was submitted by the Investigating Officer. However, the learned Magistrate directed further investigation. Pursuant thereto, further investigation was conducted, and again a closure report was submitted. Thereafter, once again, further investigation was directed, and the Crime Branch conducted a fresh investigation, which also concluded that the allegations were false, leading to submission of yet another closure report. 4. It is contended that the informant filed a protest petition against the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anurag Dubey, G.A. Nazim And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) closure report, and the learned Magistrate, without due consideration of the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer, allowed the protest petition and summoned all the petitioners under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 307 and 307/34 IPC. Petitioner Nazim was additionally summoned under Sections 3/25/27 of the Arms Act.Learned counsel further submitted that the testimony of the doctor who prepared the injury report is of great significance. The doctor expressed serious doubts regarding the nature of the injury and was not convinced that the alleged injury was caused by a firearm. It was specifically noted that the dimension of the alleged entry wound was larger than the exit wound, which is medically improbable. It is thus argued that once the foundational allegation itself becomes doubtful, the summoning of the accused under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., by discarding the material collected during investigation and placing reliance upon improved and unreliable statements of witnesses, is wholly unsustainable. 5. It is further argued that the impugned order summoning the petitioners under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is contrary to the law laid down in Abhinandan Jha vs. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 wherein it has been held that a Magistrate, while disagreeing with a closure report, may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c) Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, contended that taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. in the present facts is per se illegal.It has also been submitted that the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration an FSL report relating to a country-made firearm allegedly recovered from petitioner Nazim, which does not form part of the case diary and, therefore, could not have been relied upon. This law had been clearly stated in Pakhandu and ors Vs State of U.P. and others, MANU/UP/0911/2001. Lastly, it is submitted that Criminal Revision No. 172 of 2023, preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 21.09.2023, was also dismissed on 10.10.2024, without proper appreciation of the facts and settled legal principles applicable to the present case. It is thus contended that both the courts below have failed to correctly appreciate the material on record as well as the law governing the issue. 6. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that the statements of the injured as well as the eye-witnesses are consistent and stand duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record. It is contended that the injured has categorically stated that he was shot by petitioner Nazim, while the other accused persons had forcibly caught hold of him at the time of the incident.It is further submitted that the statement of the treating doctor is clear and specific to the effect that blackening and singeing were present around the firearm injury sustained on the abdomen of A227 No. 1324 of 2025 2 the injured, which supports the prosecution case. The FSL report further lends support to the version of the prosecution, inasmuch as it indicates that the firearm in question had been discharged from the country-made gun allegedly recovered from petitioner Nazim. On the strength of the aforesaid material, it is argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below, and the same do not call for any interference. 7. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and material brought on record, this Court finds that the injured has consistently stated that he sustained a firearm injury on his abdomen and that the shot was fired by petitioner Nazim. The said version finds substantial support from the medical evidence. The treating doctor, Adarsh Sengar, has clearly stated that blackening and singeing were present around the injury, which is indicative of a firearm discharge. Though the doctor expressed certain doubts regarding the dimensions of the entry and exit wounds, he has not given any categorical opinion to the effect that the injury was not caused by a firearm. It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of an injured witness carries great evidentiary value, and unless it is in complete contradiction with the medical evidence, the same cannot be discarded. In the present case, the medical evidence does not negate the ocular version, but rather broadly supports it. 8. So far as the FSL report is concerned, the same cannot be treated as extraneous material merely on the ground that it was submitted subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet. Any material collected during investigation does not lose its evidentiary relevance solely because it was not made part of the case diary at the time of submission before the Court. Such material can still be taken into consideration for the purposes of forming an opinion at the stage of cognizance. Hence, judgement of Pakhandu (Supra) has no relevance in this issue. 9. So far as the judgment in Abhinandan Jha (Supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that although a Magistrate cannot direct the police to submit a charge-sheet, he is not bound by the opinion expressed by the police in the final report and is competent to independently apply his judicial mind to the material collected during investigation. If he disagrees with the conclusion of the police, he may proceed to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. Further, in Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537 it has been held that before accepting a final report, an opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the informant, and the Magistrate may either accept the report, direct further investigation, or take cognizance of the offence. A227 No. 1324 of 2025 3 10. The legal position has been further clarified in India Carat Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, (1989) 2 SCC 132 wherein it has been held that even where a final report is submitted, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. on the basis of the material available in the police report and case diary, if such material discloses commission of an offence. It is not necessary to resort to Section 190(1)(c) Cr.P.C., as the cognizance in such a situation is still based on a "police report" within the meaning of law. Thus, where sufficient material exists, the Magistrate is justified in taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the contrary opinion expressed by the police. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that there exists sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners, and no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned orders passed by the courts below warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. April 9, 2026 Ujjawal A227 No. 1324 of 2025 4 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad