State of U.P v. Sartaj Husain and Others), arising out of Case Crime No

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section - 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 29.12.2021 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 14.11.2024, of Criminal Case No. 13212 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Sartaj Husain and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0985 of 2021, under Sections - 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Moradabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and no prima facie case is made out against him. Alleged incident has been shown of 23.10.2021 but first information report has been lodged on 27.11.2021. There is no explanation of delay in lodging of the first information report. In the alleged incident, the opposite party no.2 has not sustained any injury. It was submitted that first information report has been lodged making false and baseless allegations.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that in the impugned cognizance / summoning order, learned Magistrate has not 2 NA528 No. 29356 of 2025 clarified that for which sections cognizance has been taken and thus, the impugned summoning order is also suffering from infirmity. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there are allegations against applicant that in the court compound the applicant by imposing himself as an advocate, along with co-accused persons, has assaulted the informant with legs and resultantly the informant has fallen down on the road and his spectacles was broken and his shirt was torn.

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

7. 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 reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 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.

8. In the instant matter, the informant has alleged in the first information report that on 23.10.2021 at about 01:30 PM while he was in District Court compound, Moradabad, applicant, who is a fictitious advocate, along with co-accused persons has abused the informant and assaulted him with legs. Resultantly, he has fallen down on the road and his spectacles were broken and his shirt was torn. The informant has further alleged that after he raised alarm, he was saved by other advocates. It was also alleged that several 3 NA528 No. 29356 of 2025 cases are pending against applicant. In view of allegations made in the first information report and statements of witnesses, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned / adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. In the instant matter, in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out.

9. So far the impugned cognizance / summoning order is concerned, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has observed that charge sheet was submitted against applicant and co-accused persons under Section - 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C.. It has further been mentioned in the order that Case Diary and documents were perused and cognizance was taken. It was also mentioned that there was sufficient basis for taking cognizance. By impugned order cognizance has been taken under Section - 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.. 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 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.

10. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others 4 NA528 No. 29356 of 2025 (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.''

11. 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 5 NA528 No. 29356 of 2025 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 itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. Thus, it is well settled that at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint and evidence led in support of the same. The Magistrate has to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. The issuance of process should not be mechanical, rather it must be based on the allegations made in the complaint and evidence led in support of the same. Though, at the stage of issuance of process to the accused the Magistrate is not required to record detailed order but Magistrate has to be prima-facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused.

12. In view of aforesaid, there is no material illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of Court or miscarriage of justice. In view of aforesaid facts, the prayer sought by applicant is refused.

13. However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case applicant appears / surrenders before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicant appears / surrenders before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

14. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. September 17, 2025 S Rawat (Raj Beer Singh,J.) SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section - 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 29.12.2021 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 14.11.2024, of Criminal Case No. 13212 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Sartaj Husain and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0985 of 2021, under Sections - 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Moradabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and no prima facie case is made out against him. Alleged incident has been shown of 23.10.2021 but first information report has been lodged on 27.11.2021. There is no explanation of delay in lodging of the first information report. In the alleged incident, the opposite party no.2 has not sustained any injury. It was submitted that first information report has been lodged making false and baseless allegations.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that in the impugned cognizance / summoning order, learned Magistrate has not 2 NA528 No. 29356 of 2025 clarified that for which sections cognizance has been taken and thus, the impugned summoning order is also suffering from infirmity. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there are allegations against applicant that in the court compound the applicant by imposing himself as an advocate, along with co-accused persons, has assaulted the informant with legs and resultantly the informant has fallen down on the road and his spectacles was broken and his shirt was torn.

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

7. 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 reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 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.

8. In the instant matter, the informant has alleged in the first information report that on 23.10.2021 at about 01:30 PM while he was in District Court compound, Moradabad, applicant, who is a fictitious advocate, along with co-accused persons has abused the informant and assaulted him with legs. Resultantly, he has fallen down on the road and his spectacles were broken and his shirt was torn. The informant has further alleged that after he raised alarm, he was saved by other advocates. It was also alleged that several 3 NA528 No. 29356 of 2025 cases are pending against applicant. In view of allegations made in the first information report and statements of witnesses, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned / adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. In the instant matter, in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out.

9. So far the impugned cognizance / summoning order is concerned, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has observed that charge sheet was submitted against applicant and co-accused persons under Section - 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C.. It has further been mentioned in the order that Case Diary and documents were perused and cognizance was taken. It was also mentioned that there was sufficient basis for taking cognizance. By impugned order cognizance has been taken under Section - 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.. 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 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.

10. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others 4 NA528 No. 29356 of 2025 (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.''

11. 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 5 NA528 No. 29356 of 2025 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 itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. Thus, it is well settled that at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint and evidence led in support of the same. The Magistrate has to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. The issuance of process should not be mechanical, rather it must be based on the allegations made in the complaint and evidence led in support of the same. Though, at the stage of issuance of process to the accused the Magistrate is not required to record detailed order but Magistrate has to be prima-facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused.

12. In view of aforesaid, there is no material illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of Court or miscarriage of justice. In view of aforesaid facts, the prayer sought by applicant is refused.

13. However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case applicant appears / surrenders before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicant appears / surrenders before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

14. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. September 17, 2025 S Rawat (Raj Beer Singh,J.) SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad