HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26868 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Mohan Lal Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.994 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.16 of 2022, under Sections 323, 352 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sujanganj, District Jaunpur as well as charge- sheet dated 22.03.2022 and summoning order dated 19.09.2022. 3. The brief facts of the case are that opposite party No.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants alleging that, on the date of the incident, the applicants were forcibly erecting an electric pole in his field. When he objected, they assaulted him. Upon raising an alarm, local persons intervened and saved opposite party No. 2, whereafter the applicants fled from the spot, extending threats of dire consequences. On the basis of this information, an F.I.R. under Sections 323, 352 and 506 I.P.C. was lodged. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent court and the court concerned has taken cognizance of the offence. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged on false and concocted facts. He further submits that Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohan Lal Pandey, Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Dhananjay Singh, G.A., Satyendra Narayan Singh Akhilesh Tiwari Alias Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) there is no injury to the opposite party No. 2, which indicates that the alleged incident is fabricated. He next submits that the impugned cognizance/summoning order is mechanical and cryptic, having been passed without application of judicial mind. Therefore, the impugned cognizance and summoning order, as well as the entire criminal proceedings, are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decisions of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 398 of 2023 (Prabhakant and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28310 of 2023 (Sangam Kesarwani and 6 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another). Paragraph 9 of the decision in Sangam Kesarwani (supra) reads as under:– "9. The same view was again taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749. Paragraph-28 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:- "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused." 6. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the submissions of learned Counsel for the applicants and submitted that NA528 No. 26868 of 2025 2 the FIR was lodged on correct facts and after collecting evidence, the charge-sheet was filed. He further submitted that the cognizance and summoning order have been passed by the learned Magistrate after applying judicial mind, therefore, the present application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions of learned Counsel for the applicants and submitted that summoning order has been passed lawfully after examining the documents, statements and other relevant evidence placed before the Court. 8. The first contention on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the alleged incident is concocted and fabricated and no such incident has taken place. He further submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the oral evidence. In this regard, I have perused the record, which shows that the applicants have filed copies of the statements of opposite party No. 2 and other witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, in which they have supported the prosecution case. There is also a medical report of opposite party No. 2, which shows that he was medically examined and no marks of external injuries were found. The charge-sheet has been filed under Section 323 I.P.C., which pertains to causing simple hurt. 9. What would be the effect if the injury report does not show any mark of injury on the person of the injured is a matter to be considered during trial. In these proceedings, this Court cannot examine or evaluate the evidence, as it falls within the domain of the Trial Court. Hence, the submission on behalf of the applicants has no force. 10. Another and last submission made on behalf of the applicants is that the impugned cognizance and summoning order is mechanical and cryptic, without application of judicial mind. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 398 of 2023 (Prabhakant and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28310 of 2023 (Sangam Kesarwani and 6 Others vs. State of U.P. and NA528 No. 26868 of 2025 3 Another). I have gone through both the decisions and it is settled law that at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate must apply his judicial mind. 11. A perusal of the summoning order dated 19.09.2022 shows that the Magistrate perused the police papers, including the FIR, charge- sheet and case diary, and thereafter opined that there is prima facie evidence against the applicants regarding the commission of the offences. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the applicants were summoned under Sections 323, 352, and 506 I.P.C. A perusal of the above order shows that the Magistrate has applied his judicial mind while taking cognizance and summoning the appellants, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants in this regard has no force. 12. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. April 20, 2026 Amit NA528 No. 26868 of 2025 4 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad