Reserved Kameshwar Prasad Singh And Another v. State of U.P. and Another

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that regarding the dispute in question the opposite party no.2 has lodged a non-cognizable report under Sections 115(2), 352 BNS on 08.12.2024 but after that the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report of this case on

19.12.2024 regarding the same incident. It was submitted that once a non- cognizable report was already registered thus the investigation could have been conducted only with the permission of Magistrate as provided in Section 174(2) BNSS. It is submitted that as a non-cognizable report was already there, the first information report regarding same incident can not be 2 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025 registered. The investigation has been conducted against the provisions of law and thus entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. It was pointed out that in the impugned cognizance / summoning order, learned Magistrate has mentioned that a case under Sections 115(2), 352, 117(2), 110 BNS is proved, whereas at the stage of summoning only it has to be considered whether a prima-facie case for summoning is made out or not. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon following cases:- (i) Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. CBI (Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2015), (ii) GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Ltd. MANU / SC / 0271 / 2013

4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that initially a non-cognizable report was registered regarding the incident and later on the basis of medical examination report a cognizable offence was made out and thus, the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report of this case. There was no necessity at all to seek any permission from the Magistrate for registration of the first information report. In the non-cognizable report, no investigation has been conducted. It was stated that after first information report was registered for cognizable offence, police was authorised / competent to investigate the matter in accordance with law. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that even if there was any irregularity, the proceedings can not be quashed on the basis of such irregularities and the effect of the same may be considered by trial Court during trial. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon following case laws:- (i) Dharam Pal Vs. State of U.P. 2006 0 Supreme (All) 38 (ii) Subhash Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.24172 of 2016) 3 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement in case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

7. In case of Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This Section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e., the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into Court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima-facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 4 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025 However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."

8. In case of GHCL Employees (supra), the complainant has not made specific allegations against respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and similarly regarding alleged refund of the amount the complainant has not made specific allegation about the date of meeting and whether it was an individual meeting or collective meeting. In the entire complaint there were bald and vague allegations against respondent Nos. 2 to 7. It was observed that there is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition that case of breach of trust or cheating are both a civil wrong and a criminal offence, but under certain situations where the act alleged would predominantly be a civil wrong, such an act does not constitute a criminal offence. It was held as under: '' 14. Be that as it may, as held by this Court, summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate has to record his satisfaction with regard to the existence of a prima facie case on the basis of specific allegations made in the complaint supported by satisfactory evidence and other material on record.''

9. In case of Dharmpal (supra), relied by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, in para nos.7 & 8 the Court has held as under:- "(5) IT is then contended that that investigating officer only on the basis of the medical report without taking opinion of the doctor made it a case under sections 325 and 308 IPC. In my opinion there is no fetter on the investigating officer converting the case under sections 325 and 308 IPC on the basis of the injury report if in his opinion the circumstances of the case makes out such allegations which constitute those offence even if he does not examine the medical officer. (6) LEARNED counsel also relied on a single-Judge decision of this Court in the case of Surendra Vs. State of U. P., reported in 2001 (1) UP Cr R 147. This is a judgement of two paragraphs which inay be quoted as under:"heard learned counsel for the parties. It has not been disputed that a report was registered at the police station and, therefore, in view of the prohibition imposed by sub- Section (2) of Section 155 Cr. P. C the police had no power to investigate the said non-cognizable case without permission of the magistrate and to submit charge-sheet under Section 308 IPC. The Charge- sheet is, therefore. illegal and deserves to be quashed. 2. The application is allowed. The impugned charge-sheet is quashed. However, it shall be open to the investigating officer to investigate the case after obtaining the permission of the magistrate to investigate it. (7) xxxxx (8) I also find that the alleged irregularity of the police officer is not being empowered to investigate the case in not one of the irregularities mentioned in section 461 Cr. P. C. which vitiates proceedings and moreover in section 460 (b) it is even provided that if any magistrate not empowered by law orders, under section 155, the police to investigate an offence, then the 5 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025 irregularity does not vitiate the proceedings. Moreover, it is not claimed that there was any miscarriage of justice or that the applicants had been prejudiced in any manner by the police investigating the offence without obtaining permission of the Magistrate."

10. In case of Subhash (supra) initially an NCR was registered under sections 504, 507, 427 I.P.C. and later it was revealed that victim belongs to scheduled caste whereas the accused a member of backward caste and the matter was converted into a cognizable offence vide a G.D. entry and a case was registered under Sections 323, 504, 507, 427 I.P.C. and sections 3(1)X of S.C./S.T. Act. After investigation the charge sheet was submitted against the accused. The main contention on behalf of accused was that the investigation done by the police in a non cognizable offence is without the permission of the magistrate hence the charge sheet was liable to be quashed. After considering case laws the Court held as under: ''If any, N.C.R. being registered and after the registration of the NCR information is being received by the police that a cognizable offence is made out in the matter then certainly the police is authorized to investigate the matter as has been provided in section 155(4) Cr.P.C. A similar matter came for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in which the Hon'ble Justice after considering various aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that irregularity as alleged in the case is not one of the irregularities mentioned in section 461 Cr.P.C. which vitiate the proceedings and moreover, under section 460(b) Cr.P.C. which provides that if any magistrate is not empowered by law orders under section 155 Cr.P.C. to the police to investigate the offence even that irregularity does not vitiate the proceedings.''

11. It was further observed as under: ''I find that in the present matter NCR was registered but during enquiry that cannot said to be investigation as has been mentioned in section 155(2) Cr.P.C., information has been received by the police personnel that complainant is of scheduled caste whereas the applicant is backward. After that the offence was found to be cognizable investigation was being undertaken, charge sheet has been submitted. Under section 155(4) Cr.P.C. police personnel was authorized to investigate the matter and even if any irregularity is being done, then the same cannot be said to be fatal as held by the Apex Court.''

12. Thus, the issue similar to the one involved in the present case has been considered and decided in the aforesaid case. In the instant matter it appears from record that initially the opposite party no.2 has lodged a non- cognizable report on 08.12.2024 for offence under Sections 115(2), 352 BNS. It appears that in X-ray of injured Smt. Usha and Raunak Singh, it was found that they have sustained fractures and thereafter the first information report of this case was lodged on 19.12.2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 117(2), 110 BNS. In the first information report it has been alleged that on

08.12.2024 the applicants-accused have assaulted the informant, one Raunak 6 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025 and Kamlesh and resultantly they have sustained injuries. Injured persons have supported said version in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said version is further supported by medical examination report of injured persons. So far this question is concerned that initially a non- cognizable report was registered and it was not permissible to lodge fresh first information report regarding same dispute, it may be stated that in above referred case of Subhash (supra), similar issue was involved. In that case also initially a non-cognizable report was lodged but later on the basis of medical examination report of injured a cognizable offence was made out and on that basis a fresh first information report was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The Court held that if any N.C.R. is registered and after that information is received that a cognizable offence is made out, then certainly the police is authorized to investigate the matter under section 155(4) Cr.P.C. and even if there is any irregularity, the same is not fatal. In view of these facts and circumstances and position of law, the impugned proceedings can not be quashed on the basis of the alleged contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant. In view of attending facts and circumstances, the cases relied by learned counsel for the applicant do not provide any help to the applicants.

13. It is well settled that at the stage of cognizance and at the stage of issuing process to the accused, the Magistrate / Court has to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The court has to consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons, particularly when the cognizance is being taken on the basis of report filed by the police after investigation, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited and Ors. MANU/SC/7011/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 492, it was held that taking cognizance has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law and it connotes that a judicial notice is taken of an offence, after application of 7 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025 mind. Taking of cognizance is thus a condition precedent for holding a valid trial. In M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0349/1989: 1989(26) ACC 280 (SC), the Supreme Court has observed that Magistrate can take into account statements of witnesses examined by Police during investigation, take cognizance of offence complained of, order to issue a process to accused.

14. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others (2015) 12 SCC 420, it was observed as under: ''22. Under Section 190(1)(b) of CrPC, the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) of CrPC, he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under Section 190(1)(a) of CrPC, he has only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that … "a complaint of facts which constitute such offence". Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of CrPC. The complaint is simply to be rejected.

23. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1) (a) of CrPC followed by Section 204 of CrPC should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 of CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 of CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 of CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 of CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.''

15. Thus, in so far as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate/ court has the advantage of the charge sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. For issuance of process against the accused, only it has to be seen whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy 8 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025 itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defenses. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex- facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable. In this connection a reference may also be made to case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2012)11 SCC 465.

16. In view of aforesaid facts and position of law, no case for quashing of impugned charge-sheet and proceedings / summoning order is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS has no force and therefore liable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. September 16, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that regarding the dispute in question the opposite party no.2 has lodged a non-cognizable report under Sections 115(2), 352 BNS on 08.12.2024 but after that the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report of this case on

19.12.2024 regarding the same incident. It was submitted that once a non- cognizable report was already registered thus the investigation could have been conducted only with the permission of Magistrate as provided in Section 174(2) BNSS. It is submitted that as a non-cognizable report was already there, the first information report regarding same incident can not be 2 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025 registered. The investigation has been conducted against the provisions of law and thus entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. It was pointed out that in the impugned cognizance / summoning order, learned Magistrate has mentioned that a case under Sections 115(2), 352, 117(2), 110 BNS is proved, whereas at the stage of summoning only it has to be considered whether a prima-facie case for summoning is made out or not. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon following cases:- (i) Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. CBI (Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2015), (ii) GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Ltd. MANU / SC / 0271 / 2013

4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that initially a non-cognizable report was registered regarding the incident and later on the basis of medical examination report a cognizable offence was made out and thus, the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report of this case. There was no necessity at all to seek any permission from the Magistrate for registration of the first information report. In the non-cognizable report, no investigation has been conducted. It was stated that after first information report was registered for cognizable offence, police was authorised / competent to investigate the matter in accordance with law. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that even if there was any irregularity, the proceedings can not be quashed on the basis of such irregularities and the effect of the same may be considered by trial Court during trial. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon following case laws:- (i) Dharam Pal Vs. State of U.P. 2006 0 Supreme (All) 38 (ii) Subhash Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.24172 of 2016) 3 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement in case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

7. In case of Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This Section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e., the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into Court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima-facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 4 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025 However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."

8. In case of GHCL Employees (supra), the complainant has not made specific allegations against respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and similarly regarding alleged refund of the amount the complainant has not made specific allegation about the date of meeting and whether it was an individual meeting or collective meeting. In the entire complaint there were bald and vague allegations against respondent Nos. 2 to 7. It was observed that there is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition that case of breach of trust or cheating are both a civil wrong and a criminal offence, but under certain situations where the act alleged would predominantly be a civil wrong, such an act does not constitute a criminal offence. It was held as under: '' 14. Be that as it may, as held by this Court, summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate has to record his satisfaction with regard to the existence of a prima facie case on the basis of specific allegations made in the complaint supported by satisfactory evidence and other material on record.''

9. In case of Dharmpal (supra), relied by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, in para nos.7 & 8 the Court has held as under:- "(5) IT is then contended that that investigating officer only on the basis of the medical report without taking opinion of the doctor made it a case under sections 325 and 308 IPC. In my opinion there is no fetter on the investigating officer converting the case under sections 325 and 308 IPC on the basis of the injury report if in his opinion the circumstances of the case makes out such allegations which constitute those offence even if he does not examine the medical officer. (6) LEARNED counsel also relied on a single-Judge decision of this Court in the case of Surendra Vs. State of U. P., reported in 2001 (1) UP Cr R 147. This is a judgement of two paragraphs which inay be quoted as under:"heard learned counsel for the parties. It has not been disputed that a report was registered at the police station and, therefore, in view of the prohibition imposed by sub- Section (2) of Section 155 Cr. P. C the police had no power to investigate the said non-cognizable case without permission of the magistrate and to submit charge-sheet under Section 308 IPC. The Charge- sheet is, therefore. illegal and deserves to be quashed. 2. The application is allowed. The impugned charge-sheet is quashed. However, it shall be open to the investigating officer to investigate the case after obtaining the permission of the magistrate to investigate it. (7) xxxxx (8) I also find that the alleged irregularity of the police officer is not being empowered to investigate the case in not one of the irregularities mentioned in section 461 Cr. P. C. which vitiates proceedings and moreover in section 460 (b) it is even provided that if any magistrate not empowered by law orders, under section 155, the police to investigate an offence, then the 5 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025 irregularity does not vitiate the proceedings. Moreover, it is not claimed that there was any miscarriage of justice or that the applicants had been prejudiced in any manner by the police investigating the offence without obtaining permission of the Magistrate."

10. In case of Subhash (supra) initially an NCR was registered under sections 504, 507, 427 I.P.C. and later it was revealed that victim belongs to scheduled caste whereas the accused a member of backward caste and the matter was converted into a cognizable offence vide a G.D. entry and a case was registered under Sections 323, 504, 507, 427 I.P.C. and sections 3(1)X of S.C./S.T. Act. After investigation the charge sheet was submitted against the accused. The main contention on behalf of accused was that the investigation done by the police in a non cognizable offence is without the permission of the magistrate hence the charge sheet was liable to be quashed. After considering case laws the Court held as under: ''If any, N.C.R. being registered and after the registration of the NCR information is being received by the police that a cognizable offence is made out in the matter then certainly the police is authorized to investigate the matter as has been provided in section 155(4) Cr.P.C. A similar matter came for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in which the Hon'ble Justice after considering various aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that irregularity as alleged in the case is not one of the irregularities mentioned in section 461 Cr.P.C. which vitiate the proceedings and moreover, under section 460(b) Cr.P.C. which provides that if any magistrate is not empowered by law orders under section 155 Cr.P.C. to the police to investigate the offence even that irregularity does not vitiate the proceedings.''

11. It was further observed as under: ''I find that in the present matter NCR was registered but during enquiry that cannot said to be investigation as has been mentioned in section 155(2) Cr.P.C., information has been received by the police personnel that complainant is of scheduled caste whereas the applicant is backward. After that the offence was found to be cognizable investigation was being undertaken, charge sheet has been submitted. Under section 155(4) Cr.P.C. police personnel was authorized to investigate the matter and even if any irregularity is being done, then the same cannot be said to be fatal as held by the Apex Court.''

12. Thus, the issue similar to the one involved in the present case has been considered and decided in the aforesaid case. In the instant matter it appears from record that initially the opposite party no.2 has lodged a non- cognizable report on 08.12.2024 for offence under Sections 115(2), 352 BNS. It appears that in X-ray of injured Smt. Usha and Raunak Singh, it was found that they have sustained fractures and thereafter the first information report of this case was lodged on 19.12.2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 117(2), 110 BNS. In the first information report it has been alleged that on

08.12.2024 the applicants-accused have assaulted the informant, one Raunak 6 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025 and Kamlesh and resultantly they have sustained injuries. Injured persons have supported said version in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said version is further supported by medical examination report of injured persons. So far this question is concerned that initially a non- cognizable report was registered and it was not permissible to lodge fresh first information report regarding same dispute, it may be stated that in above referred case of Subhash (supra), similar issue was involved. In that case also initially a non-cognizable report was lodged but later on the basis of medical examination report of injured a cognizable offence was made out and on that basis a fresh first information report was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The Court held that if any N.C.R. is registered and after that information is received that a cognizable offence is made out, then certainly the police is authorized to investigate the matter under section 155(4) Cr.P.C. and even if there is any irregularity, the same is not fatal. In view of these facts and circumstances and position of law, the impugned proceedings can not be quashed on the basis of the alleged contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant. In view of attending facts and circumstances, the cases relied by learned counsel for the applicant do not provide any help to the applicants.

13. It is well settled that at the stage of cognizance and at the stage of issuing process to the accused, the Magistrate / Court has to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The court has to consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons, particularly when the cognizance is being taken on the basis of report filed by the police after investigation, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited and Ors. MANU/SC/7011/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 492, it was held that taking cognizance has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law and it connotes that a judicial notice is taken of an offence, after application of 7 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025 mind. Taking of cognizance is thus a condition precedent for holding a valid trial. In M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0349/1989: 1989(26) ACC 280 (SC), the Supreme Court has observed that Magistrate can take into account statements of witnesses examined by Police during investigation, take cognizance of offence complained of, order to issue a process to accused.

14. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others (2015) 12 SCC 420, it was observed as under: ''22. Under Section 190(1)(b) of CrPC, the Magistrate has the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) of CrPC, he has the information or knowledge of commission of an offence. But under Section 190(1)(a) of CrPC, he has only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that … "a complaint of facts which constitute such offence". Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of CrPC. The complaint is simply to be rejected.

23. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1) (a) of CrPC followed by Section 204 of CrPC should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 of CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 of CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 of CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 of CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.''

15. Thus, in so far as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate/ court has the advantage of the charge sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. For issuance of process against the accused, only it has to be seen whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy 8 NA528 No. 22498 of 2025 itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defenses. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex- facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable. In this connection a reference may also be made to case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2012)11 SCC 465.

16. In view of aforesaid facts and position of law, no case for quashing of impugned charge-sheet and proceedings / summoning order is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS has no force and therefore liable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. September 16, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad