Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27061 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3254 of 2025 Applicant :- Laxman And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajad Singh,Pranav Mishra,Shad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicant herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the summoning order dated 16.02.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Case Crime No. 936 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504 & 308 I.P.C., Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat pending before learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a first information report stood lodged against the applicants and one another purported to be under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 294, 354, 376, 511, 325 & 308 IPC being FIR No. 0936 relatable to the commission of offence on 25.9.2021. He further submits that post lodging of the first information report the Investigating Officer submitted a final report and on protest petition being instituted by the opposite party no.2, the order dated 16.2.2024 has been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat summoning the applicants under Sections 147, 323, 504 & 308 I.P.C while putting into service Section 190 (1)(B) of the Cr.P.C. while rejecting the final report. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has made three submissions, first, once the protest petition stood allowed setting aside the final report then the proceedings under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. ought to have been resorted, secondly, once the main allegation regarding outraging the modesty stood ruled out then no offences stood made out, third so far as the insertion of the Section 308 IPC relatable to the injuries sustained by Prem Singh, being lacerated wound over forehead size 0.6 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. horizontally being shown and the second injury lacerated wound over those size 1 c.m. x 2 c.m. cannot come within the realm of Section 308 IPC, in view of the fact that the doctor has opined that the injuries are simple in nature. He seeks to rely upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Chandrika vs. Santhosh 2014 AIR SCW 300. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that none of the submissions as sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicants has any legs to stand particularly when first of all in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1285, it is always open for the Magistrate to set aside the report and on finding materials before it proceed to issue warrants. He further submits that the injuries sustained by Prem Singh itself shows that they are on temporal region and thus the provisions of Section 308 IPC would come into play and further even if the allegation of outraging of modesty are not made out but the other penal provisions relatable to commission of offences would not extinguish. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the order passed by court below while issuing summons against the applicants is directly justified in accordance with law. Though allegations were in the FIR regarding outraging of the modesty but the final report exonerates the applicants, however, merely because final report exonerates the applicants with respect to outraging of the modesty of the opposite party no.2 would not in any manner whatsoever be a ground to dilute or extinguish the charges under Sections under Sections 147, 323, 504 & 308 I.P.C as injury report shows that the injury was extended on the temporal region, might be medical report terms it to be of simple in nature but the nature of the injuries cannot be ignored. Apart from the same as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwant Singh (Supra) on a final report being submitted that no offence has been committed the Magistrate has three options (a) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings (b) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further while taking cognizance offence and issue process or (c) direct further investigation. Here in the present case, it is apparent from the order of the Magistrate that there was sufficient material available so as to issue warrants. So far as the judgement in the case of B. Chandrika (Supra) is concerned the same is not applicable in the facts of the case. 6. Thus, in these circumstances, no case is made out. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands consigned to record. Order Date :- 27.2.2025/piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad