HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20483 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Chakiya, in Case No. 966 of 2022, under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Shahabganj, District Chandauli. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially a Non- Cognizable Report dated 07.08.2019 was lodged by the informant under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. Thereafter, upon an application moved by the informant, investigation was directed by the learned Magistrate and pursuant thereto charge-sheet dated 11.11.2021 came to be submitted against the applicants. It is further submitted that earlier cognizance taken on the said police report vide order dated 14.06.2022 was challenged before this Court and the same was quashed with the observation that in matters arising out of an NCR, the police report submitted after investigation is to be treated as a complaint case at the stage of taking cognizance. 4. It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid specific observations made by this Court, the learned court concerned has again passed the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 without following the procedure prescribed for complaint cases and without recording Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Byas Kumar Prasad, Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A. Paravind Kumar Vishwakarma And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 223 BNSS), therefore, the impugned order is wholly illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity inasmuch as proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 223 BNSS) clearly provides that where the complaint has been made by a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties, the learned Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant and witnesses on oath before proceeding further in the matter. It is thus submitted that the learned court concerned has rightly proceeded in accordance with law and no interference by this Court is warranted. 6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. On the perusal of record, it transpires that after lodging of the NCR, investigation was directed by the Magistrate concerned and pursuant thereto police report/charge-sheet came to be submitted against the applicants. Earlier order taking cognizance was quashed by this Court with an observation that the police report submitted in pursuance of investigation arising out of an NCR is to be treated as a complaint case at the stage of cognizance. So far as the grievance of the applicants regarding non-compliance of Section 200 Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 223 BNSS) is concerned, proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C. specifically provides that where a complaint is made by a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties, the Magistrate is not bound to examine the complainant and witnesses upon oath before issuance of process. In the present case, the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order has proceeded in accordance with the aforesaid statutory provision and specifically mentioned section 200 Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 223 BNSS) in the impugned order. This court does not find any perversity and illegality in the impugned order. 8. It is well settled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS NA528 No. 20483 of 2025 2 is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. At this stage, this Court does not find any such illegality, perversity or abuse of process of law warranting interference in exercise of inherent powers. 9. In view of above, this court does not find any good ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 528 BNSS. 10. The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. March 17, 2026 v.k. updh. NA528 No. 20483 of 2025 3 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad