Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52635 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10632 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Sagar Soni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Chauhan,Shiva Kant Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred as 'BNSS') has been preferred against the order dated 20.03.2025, passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 20, Azamgarh, in Complaint No. 3582 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Jahanaganj, District Azamgarh, whereby opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 have been summoned for the offence under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is complainant of the aforesaid case and that in the alleged incident the father of applicant, namely Raj Kumar has sustained fracture of ulna bone and thus, a case under Section 325 IPC was also made out but the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 have been summoned only for the offence under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. It was submitted that a prima facie case under Section 325 IPC is made out and thus, the impugned summoning order may be altered to this extent. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. It is well settled that at the stage of summoning the Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record in order to consider whether a prima facie case is made out or not. The Magistrate is not bound to summon the proposed accused persons under all the sections mentioned in the complaint, rather it is to be considered as to what specific offences are made out. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that regarding same incident a first information report was lodged by opposite party No. 2 against applicant and others for the office under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC on 09.11.2022 and after that applicant has lodged the complaint in question by putting a counter version to the said incident. In his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant (applicant herein) has made a vague allegation that the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 did 'maarpeet' and that his father has sustained a fracture in hand. No specific allegation has been made to any of the accused. In view of attending facts and circumstances, particularly considering the fact that regarding same incident a case has been registered against the applicant for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, it cannot be said that the trial court has committed any patent illegality by not summoning the private opposite parties for the offence under Section 325 IPC. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice. Further, the applicant can raise his plea regarding applicability of Section 325 IPC at the time of framing of charge. In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. The inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS have to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 528 BNSS are very wide but the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Such powers have to be exercised only to give effect to any order under BNSS to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. In the instant matter no such exigency could be shown. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this application under Section 528 BNSS has no force and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. The application under Section 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad