Allahabad High Court
Ram Jas And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 6 August, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:54366
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1156 of 2020
Ram Jas And Ors.
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Anr.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Nijam Ahamad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 30
HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
1. Heard Sri Nijam Ahamad, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present application has been filed for the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause of this Application. The prayer clause is delineated below:- “Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 83 of 2020; State Versus Radhey Shyam and others, arising out of Case Crime No.56 of 2019, under sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 353, 332, 427 I.P.C., relating to Police Station- Hanswar, District- Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, as well as impugned chargesheet no.147/2009, dated 25.10.2019, submitted by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners and others in aforesaid case crime number, and impugned summoning order dated 27.1.2020, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, as contained in Annexure nos. 1 and 2 respectively to this petition, so far as the same relate to the petitioners, in the interest of law and justice.”
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were not named in the First Information Report and that their names surfaced only during the course of investigation on the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further submits that, upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the applicants under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 353, 332 and 427 I.P.C., whereupon the court concerned took cognizance and passed the impugned cognizance-cum-summoning order dated 27.01.2020.
4. It is further submitted that the impugned cognizance-cum-summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without due application of judicial mind to the material available on record. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned cognizance-cum-summoning order is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that it is settled proposition of law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of the event and it is not expected to contain a complete, chronological account of every aspect of the incident, rather the main purpose of an FIR is to inform the police about the commission of a cognizable offence (a serious crime where police can arrest without a warrant) so that they can begin an investigation. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of V.K. Mishra and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 588, Latesh alias Dadu Baburao Karlekar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 66, Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and others, (2021) 1 SCC 1.
6. Learned A.G.A. further submits that recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 25 of the case of B.N. John vs. State of U.P. and another, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 12 : 2025 INSC 4 has reiterated the aforesaid proposition of law as propounded in its earlier judgments. Relevant paragraph no.25 of B.N. John‘s case (supra) is delineated below, for ready reference :- “25. In the FIR there is no allegation of use of criminal force or assault by the appellant so as to invoke the provision of Section 353 of the IPC. It is to be remembered that a criminal process is initiated only with the lodging of an FIR. Though FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia containing all the detailed facts of the incident and it is merely a document that triggers and sets into motion the criminal legal process, yet it must disclose the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed as otherwise, it would be susceptible to being quashed as held in Bhajan Lal?s case (supra) (vide clause 1 of Para 102 of the decision). This Court in CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175 observed as follows: ?20. It is well settled that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to be able to disclose in great detail all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information?????????? (emphasis added)”
7. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the material collected by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) during the course of the investigation cannot be treated as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act unless and until the witnesses are examined on oath in their examination-in-chief and are subjected to cross-examination. It is further submitted that the documents collected during the investigation must also be duly proved through the testimony of competent witnesses during the course of the trial. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that in view of Section 461 Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 507 BNSS), there is no illegality or irregularity which may vitiate the proceedings. For ready reference, Section 461 Cr.P.C. is quoted herein below:-
“Section 461. Irregularities which vitiate proceedings.?If any Magistrate, not being empowered by law in this behalf, does any of the following things, namely:? (a) attaches and sells property under section 83; (b) issues a search-warrant for a document, parcel or other things in the custody of a postal or telegraph authority; (c) demands security to keep the peace; (d) demands security for good behaviour; (e) discharges a person lawfully bound to be of good behaviour; (f) cancels a bond to keep the peace; (g) makes an order for maintenance; (h) makes an order under section 133 as to a local nuisance; (i) prohibits, under section 143, the repetition or continuance of a public nuisance; (j) makes an order under Part C or Part D of Chapter X; (k) takes cognizance of an offence under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 190; (l) tries an offender; (m) tries an offender summarily; (n) passes a sentence, under section 325, on proceedings recorded by another Magistrate; (o) decides an appeal; (p) calls, under section 397, for proceedings; or (q) revises an order passed under section 446,
his proceedings shall be void.”
8. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the learned Court of cognizance has taken cognizance in accordance with law as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde; (2014) 3 SCC 659, in paragraph Nos. 13 and 14. The Paragraph No.13 and 14 are delineated below: “13. But if a case is registered by the police based on the FIR registered at the Police Station under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and not by way of a complaint under Section 190(a) of the Cr.P.C. before the magistrate, obviously the magisterial enquiry cannot be held in regard to the FIR which had been registered as it is the investigating agency of the police which alone is legally entitled to conduct the investigation and, thereafter, submit the chargesheet unless of course a complaint before the magistrate is also lodged where the procedure prescribed for complaint cases would be applicable. In a police case, however after submission of the chargesheet, the matter goes to the magistrate for forming an opinion as to whether it is a fit case for taking cognizance and committing the matter for trial in a case which is lodged before the police by way of FIR and the magistrate cannot exclude or include any section into the chargesheet after investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been submitted by the police. 14. The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offence into the chargesheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the chargesheet and as already stated, the magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or substract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under section 216, 218 or under section 228 of the Cr.P.C. as the case may be which means that after submission of the chargesheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the chargesheet.
(Emphasis supplied)”
9. Learned A.G.A. further contends that the court of cognizance cannot add or subtract, exclude or include any Section mentioned in the charge-sheet at the time of taking of cognizance as the same is permissible at the time of framing of charge.
10. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the opportunity of hearing shall be given to the accused-applicants at the time of framing of charge in view of Section 239 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 262(2) BNSS). For ready reference Section 239 Cr.P.C is being quoted below:
?Section 262. When accused shall be discharged.?If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused, as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.?
11. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed a judgment in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta; (2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 539 wherein the Court has categorically held that at the time of summoning, there is no need to record reasons in the summoning order. Further, the aforesaid judgment has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 91 of its judgment passed in Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 Supreme Court Cases 62. The relevant paragraph No.91 passed in Pradeep S. Wodeyar (supra) is being quoted below for the sake of convenience:- “91.While distinguishing the decision in Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra) on the ground that it related to taking of cognizance in a complaint case, the court held since in a case of cognizance based on a police report, the Magistrate has the advantage of perusing the materials, he is not required to record reasons: State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (2019) 20 SCC 539 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri.) 876-2 23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file.”
12. Learned A.G.A. further submits that time and again Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not empowered to conduct a mini trial. In this regard, reference can be had to the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Akhil Sharda and others, (2023) 11 Supreme Court Cases 626, Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and others, (2023) 18 Supreme Court Cases 399 and Naresh Aneja alias Naresh Kumar Aneja vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2025) 2 Supreme Court Cases 604. The relevant paragraph No.18 of the judgment of Akhil Sharda and others (supra) is being quoted below for ready reference:- “18. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.”
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned cognizance-cum-summoning order, so as to grant any relief to the applicants at this stage. Moreover, this Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact, while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as has been held time and again in catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
14. Accordingly, the application is dismissed at this stage.
15. Needless to state that the applicants shall have an opportunity of being heard at the stage of framing of charge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 262(2) BNSS). The applicants may raise all their grievances at the stage of framing of charge before the trial court. The trial court shall consider and evaluate the entire material collected during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer and shall independently consider the case of the applicants at the stage of framing of charge, strictly in accordance with law, provided that charges have not already been framed.
(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)
August 6, 2026
DKS
Â
Â
