Jahar Singh v. Jitendra Kumar Alias Kallu and others

1. Heard Mr. V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt and Sri M.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Indra Jit Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 07.02.2025, passed by Special Judge Dacoity Effected Area, Third Additional District and Session Judge, Farrukhabad in Criminal Revision No. 69 of 2024, Jahar Singh Vs. Jitendra Kumar Alias Kallu and others (in Case Crime No. 483 of 2023, State Vs. Jitendra Alias Kallu and others, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 308 and 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Maudarwaja, District- Fatehgarh (Farrukhabad).

3. It is alleged in the first information report that applicants and other co- accused persons, due to old enmity, entered into the house of informant and made assault, as a result thereof, three persons received injuries, namely, Jahar Singh (informant herein), Yogesh Kumar (son of informant) and Vipnesh (wife of the informant). Injuries received by the informant (Jahar Singh) (i) Contusion- 4.5x4.0 cm- above from left wrist 2 NA528 No. 14024 of 2025 (ii) Abrasion contusion- 5.0x3.5 cm- lower left arm (iii) Abrasion- 5.0x0.5cm- left lower arm (iv) Swelling- 7.0x7.0cm- Rt. palm lateral side & Rt. wrist joint Injuries of Yogesh Kumar(son of the informant) (i) Lacerated wound (Deep)- 7.0x2.0cm- left side occipital region (ii) Swelling- 12x8cm- left shoulder (iii) Abrasion 1.0x1.0cm- Rt. little finger (iv) Abrasion 1.5x0.5cm- middle and ring finger in left (v) Abraded contusion- 10x2.5cm- left shoulder back (vi) Contusion- 8x1.5cm- Roof of neck (vii) Contusion- 7x2 cm- Rt. shoulder back Injuries of Vipnesh (wife of the informant) (i) Contusion- 5x4cm- Around left eye lid (ii) Lacerated wound (Deep) 5.5x1.0cm- left side forehead 3.0 cm above from left eye browl (iii) Contusion- 3.0x3.0cm- over base of Rt. Thumb (iv) Swelling- 4.0x3.0cm- Rt. side parietal region

4. I.O. after recording statements of witnesses and injured submitted charge-sheet against the applicant no. 1, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 427, 308, 325 IPC and against applicant nos. 2 & 3, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 427, 325 IPC, thereafter, Trial Court took cognizance on 05.02.2024 under aforementioned sections. Informant found that I.O. had not collected material evidence with regard to injuries and moved an application on 18.03.2024 for summoning the accused-applicants under Section 326 I.P.C. Since, Court concerned took cognizance on the charge- 3 NA528 No. 14024 of 2025 sheet on 05.02.2024, therefore, dismissed the application of informant/opposite party no. 2 on 20.03.2024. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 filed criminal revision no. 69 of 2024 against the order dated

20.03.2024. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties allowed the revision of opposite party no. 2 and matter was remanded for fresh consideration vide order dated 07.02.2025. The order dated 07.02.2025 in impugned herein.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Trial Court has rightly took cognizance on the material evidence collected by I.O. and submitted in form of charge-sheet on 05.02.2024. Counsel for the applicants next submits that applicant no. 1 surrendered and applied for bail and he was granted bail. In para-16 of the affidavit, it is stated that applicant no. 3, namely, Ravi Alias Ekansh Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail. He next submits that during the pendency of the criminal revision, Trial Court committed the case to Sessions Court vide order dated 10.01.2025. The order of committal dated 10.01.2025 was challenged by informant/opposite party no. 2 by filing criminal revision no. 31 of 2025. The criminal revision of the informant/opposite party no. 2 has been dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants next argued that impugned order dated 07.02.2025 is illegal and arbitrary. From the record, it is apparent that Trial Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 committed the case to Session Court, therefore, remand order for fresh adjudication or for further investigation is illegal and arbitrary. He next submits that informant/opposite party no. 2 moved application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C for further investigation. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 07.01.2025 rejected the application of informant/opposite party no.

2. Application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was moved with submission that as per the report of the doctor, teeth of injured Yogesh, are broken and CT-Scan, X-Ray Report with regard to breaking of teeth was not available but I.O. submitted charge-sheet under pressure of applicants, without collecting any material evidence in regard to broken teeth. He further submits that order impugned herein is bad in the eye of law and liable to be set-aside. 4 NA528 No. 14024 of 2025

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel informant/opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that from the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Revisional Court, it is apparent that committal order dated 10.01.2025, has been set-aside by the Session Court and record has been remanded to Chief Judicial Magistrate. The impugned order dated 07.02.2025 is just and proper as injured have received injuries and teeth of injured were found broken and other medical evidence was not collected by I.O. and in a very hurried manner I.O. has submitted charge-sheet without collecting material evidence. Revisional Court has rightly allowed the revision of informant/opposite party no. 2 and directed for fresh adjudication after considering the medical examination report and other material evidence, which were not present at the time of submission of charge-sheet. On perusal of first information report and other material evidence available on record, prima facie, offence under Section 326 IPC is made out and applicants must be charged under Section 326 IPC.

8. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From the record, it is apparent that I.O. has submitted charge-sheet without collecting material evidence, which is evident from the statement of the doctor. It is an admitted case that X-Ray Report, CT-Scan Report and Dental Report of injured Yogesh were advised but the same were not available at that time, therefore, same had not been submitted by I.O. while submitting the charge-sheet. Trial Court after considering all the material evidence allowed the revision for fresh examination of evidence collected by I.O. during investigation. The argument of the applicants that case had been committed to session having no force as order dated 09.05.2025 reveals that committal order dated 10.01.2025 has been set-aside by the Session Court.

9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 07.02.2025. The order impugned is just and proper. Trial Court has remanded the matter with direction that Chief Judicial Magistrate may examine the material evidence collected by I.O. and pass a fresh order. No interference is warranted by this Court. 5 NA528 No. 14024 of 2025

10. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 9, 2025 Aditya (Deepak Verma,J.) ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt and Sri M.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Indra Jit Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 07.02.2025, passed by Special Judge Dacoity Effected Area, Third Additional District and Session Judge, Farrukhabad in Criminal Revision No. 69 of 2024, Jahar Singh Vs. Jitendra Kumar Alias Kallu and others (in Case Crime No. 483 of 2023, State Vs. Jitendra Alias Kallu and others, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 308 and 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Maudarwaja, District- Fatehgarh (Farrukhabad).

3. It is alleged in the first information report that applicants and other co- accused persons, due to old enmity, entered into the house of informant and made assault, as a result thereof, three persons received injuries, namely, Jahar Singh (informant herein), Yogesh Kumar (son of informant) and Vipnesh (wife of the informant). Injuries received by the informant (Jahar Singh) (i) Contusion- 4.5x4.0 cm- above from left wrist 2 NA528 No. 14024 of 2025 (ii) Abrasion contusion- 5.0x3.5 cm- lower left arm (iii) Abrasion- 5.0x0.5cm- left lower arm (iv) Swelling- 7.0x7.0cm- Rt. palm lateral side & Rt. wrist joint Injuries of Yogesh Kumar(son of the informant) (i) Lacerated wound (Deep)- 7.0x2.0cm- left side occipital region (ii) Swelling- 12x8cm- left shoulder (iii) Abrasion 1.0x1.0cm- Rt. little finger (iv) Abrasion 1.5x0.5cm- middle and ring finger in left (v) Abraded contusion- 10x2.5cm- left shoulder back (vi) Contusion- 8x1.5cm- Roof of neck (vii) Contusion- 7x2 cm- Rt. shoulder back Injuries of Vipnesh (wife of the informant) (i) Contusion- 5x4cm- Around left eye lid (ii) Lacerated wound (Deep) 5.5x1.0cm- left side forehead 3.0 cm above from left eye browl (iii) Contusion- 3.0x3.0cm- over base of Rt. Thumb (iv) Swelling- 4.0x3.0cm- Rt. side parietal region

4. I.O. after recording statements of witnesses and injured submitted charge-sheet against the applicant no. 1, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 427, 308, 325 IPC and against applicant nos. 2 & 3, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 427, 325 IPC, thereafter, Trial Court took cognizance on 05.02.2024 under aforementioned sections. Informant found that I.O. had not collected material evidence with regard to injuries and moved an application on 18.03.2024 for summoning the accused-applicants under Section 326 I.P.C. Since, Court concerned took cognizance on the charge- 3 NA528 No. 14024 of 2025 sheet on 05.02.2024, therefore, dismissed the application of informant/opposite party no. 2 on 20.03.2024. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 filed criminal revision no. 69 of 2024 against the order dated

20.03.2024. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties allowed the revision of opposite party no. 2 and matter was remanded for fresh consideration vide order dated 07.02.2025. The order dated 07.02.2025 in impugned herein.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Trial Court has rightly took cognizance on the material evidence collected by I.O. and submitted in form of charge-sheet on 05.02.2024. Counsel for the applicants next submits that applicant no. 1 surrendered and applied for bail and he was granted bail. In para-16 of the affidavit, it is stated that applicant no. 3, namely, Ravi Alias Ekansh Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail. He next submits that during the pendency of the criminal revision, Trial Court committed the case to Sessions Court vide order dated 10.01.2025. The order of committal dated 10.01.2025 was challenged by informant/opposite party no. 2 by filing criminal revision no. 31 of 2025. The criminal revision of the informant/opposite party no. 2 has been dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants next argued that impugned order dated 07.02.2025 is illegal and arbitrary. From the record, it is apparent that Trial Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 committed the case to Session Court, therefore, remand order for fresh adjudication or for further investigation is illegal and arbitrary. He next submits that informant/opposite party no. 2 moved application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C for further investigation. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 07.01.2025 rejected the application of informant/opposite party no.

2. Application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was moved with submission that as per the report of the doctor, teeth of injured Yogesh, are broken and CT-Scan, X-Ray Report with regard to breaking of teeth was not available but I.O. submitted charge-sheet under pressure of applicants, without collecting any material evidence in regard to broken teeth. He further submits that order impugned herein is bad in the eye of law and liable to be set-aside. 4 NA528 No. 14024 of 2025

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel informant/opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that from the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Revisional Court, it is apparent that committal order dated 10.01.2025, has been set-aside by the Session Court and record has been remanded to Chief Judicial Magistrate. The impugned order dated 07.02.2025 is just and proper as injured have received injuries and teeth of injured were found broken and other medical evidence was not collected by I.O. and in a very hurried manner I.O. has submitted charge-sheet without collecting material evidence. Revisional Court has rightly allowed the revision of informant/opposite party no. 2 and directed for fresh adjudication after considering the medical examination report and other material evidence, which were not present at the time of submission of charge-sheet. On perusal of first information report and other material evidence available on record, prima facie, offence under Section 326 IPC is made out and applicants must be charged under Section 326 IPC.

8. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From the record, it is apparent that I.O. has submitted charge-sheet without collecting material evidence, which is evident from the statement of the doctor. It is an admitted case that X-Ray Report, CT-Scan Report and Dental Report of injured Yogesh were advised but the same were not available at that time, therefore, same had not been submitted by I.O. while submitting the charge-sheet. Trial Court after considering all the material evidence allowed the revision for fresh examination of evidence collected by I.O. during investigation. The argument of the applicants that case had been committed to session having no force as order dated 09.05.2025 reveals that committal order dated 10.01.2025 has been set-aside by the Session Court.

9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 07.02.2025. The order impugned is just and proper. Trial Court has remanded the matter with direction that Chief Judicial Magistrate may examine the material evidence collected by I.O. and pass a fresh order. No interference is warranted by this Court. 5 NA528 No. 14024 of 2025

10. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 9, 2025 Aditya (Deepak Verma,J.) ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad