HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 832 of 2026 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the entire record. 2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred with a prayer to call for the case diary and all materials of Criminal Case No. 913 of 2025 (State Vs. Chhabile Mishra @ Devi Prasad & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 277 of 2024 Police Station-Sujangaj, District-Jaunpur and examine the legality of alteration of Section 310 B.N.S. by the Investigating Officer, which has affected the nature of offence from "loot with hurt" to a mere simple hurt case. The applicant has also prayed for a direction upon the Investigating Officer to further investigate the matter. 3. The solitary submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was lodged under Section 310 (2) B.N.S., but the charge-sheet was submitted only under Sections 191 (2), 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 324 (4), 110 B.N.S. and the Magistrate has also taken cognizance under which the charge- sheet has been submitted, which is per se illegal. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that since the charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer under Sections 191 (2), 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 324 (4), 110 B.N.S., the Magistrate was bound to take cognizance only for the offences mentioned therein. 5. In State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakishan Varde;AIR 2014 SC 620, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that at the time of taking cognizance, the Magistrate has no right to include or exclude any sections and is bound to take cognizance of the sections mentioned in the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mohd. Ayub, Umesh Chandra Vishwakarma Nitesh Kumar Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Consequently, this Court holds that since the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 191 (2), 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 324 (4), 110 B.N.S. and the Magistrate has also taken cognizance in the said sections, the Magistrate has not committed any illegality or infirmity in taking cognizance under which the charge-sheet has been submitted. 7. The criminal appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that at the time of framing of charge, the applicant shall have ample opportunity to have his say in the matter, which shall be considered in accordance with law. September 8, 2026 Sushil/- NA528 No. 832 of 2026 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad