HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14160 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Shri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Amrit Raj, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following main prayer :- "i) Setting aside the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), New Court X/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in Case No. 11069 of 2023 (Javaharlal Gaud Vs. Anil Kumar Pathak and Others) as well as the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 464/2024 (Javaharlal Gaud Vs. State of U.P. and others)." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner instituted a Complaint Case No. 11069 of 2023, (Jawaharlal Lal Gaur vs. Anil Kumar Pathak and others), wherein he alleged that he was assaulted by the respondents, who inflicted injuries upon him by sticks, fists and punches. Not only the petitioner but one of his companions was also assaulted and abused by the respondents. However, when he approached the police station for lodging a first information report against the respondents and to get himself medically examined, no action was taken by the authorities. He thereafter instituted the complaint case as stated above. Statements of the complainant-petitioner and his witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. All the witnesses have consistently corroborated the prosecution story. The petitioner as well as his companion, who was injured witness, were also examined during the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Javaharlal Gaud .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) proceedings. However, his complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by holding that the allegations of the petitioner seem to be exaggerated and that there was no injury report in support of the injuries sustained by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the absence of an injury report was not due to any fault on the part of the petitioner but was the result of inaction on the part of the police authorities, who refused to produce him before a doctor for medical examination. He submitted that he filed an application before the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, who passed a direction to the Chief Medical Officer to examine the injuries of the petitioner. Subsequently, he was medically examined on 18.03.2023. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 464 of 2024, (Jawaharlal Gaur vs. State of U.P. and others), against the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), New Court X/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur; however, the said criminal revision was also dismissed on 09.07.2025 without considering the grievances of the petitioner. He submitted that none of the courts below have considered the allegations and statements of the complainant and his witnesses. Therefore, the orders passed by both the courts are liable to be set aside. 5. Sri Amrit Raj, learned A.G.A., submitted that the trial court has rightly upheld that the allegations in the complaint, prima facie, appear to be exaggerated. The learned trial court has also observed that the allegations in the complaint are there that the petitioner was severely assaulted by sticks and clubs, however, he was unable to produce any medical report. Therefore, the findings of the trial court do not warrant any interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by both the courts below. 7. It is apparent from a reading of the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned trial court that the complaint of the petitioner has been dismissed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner was unable to produce any injury report to substantiate the allegations and secondly that the allegations seem to be exaggerated. This Court finds that merely A227 No. 14160 of 2025 2 observing that the allegations are exaggerated is not proper unless there are cogent reasons to substantiate such a finding. Similarly, the other reason that the petitioner has not produced the injury report is also not tenable because the petitioner from the very beginning has come up with the case that his request to get himself medically examined was turned down by the police authorities. 8. In the given circumstances, this Court finds it fit to set aside the order dated 23.09.2024 as well as the order dated 09.07.2025. The learned trial court is directed to restore the Complaint Case No. 11069 of 2023, (Jawaharlal Gaur vs. Anil Kumar Pathak and others) to its original number and pass a fresh order after calling a report under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. After such report is received before the court, the learned trial court shall consider the statements of the complainant and his witnesses as well as the report submitted under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made above. May 6, 2026 KJ A227 No. 14160 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad