JAVAHARLAL GAUDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14160 of 2025

Javaharlal Gaud
                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Ramesh Chandra            Yadav,     Santosh
                                     Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : G.A.

Court No. - 89
                       HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Shri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Amrit
Raj, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed with the following main prayer :-

"i) Setting aside the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge
(J.D.), New Court X/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in Case No. 11069 of 2023
(Javaharlal Gaud Vs. Anil Kumar Pathak and Others) as well as the order dated
09.07.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Jaunpur in Criminal
Revision No. 464/2024 (Javaharlal Gaud Vs. State of U.P. and others)."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
instituted a Complaint Case No. 11069 of 2023, (Jawaharlal Lal Gaur vs.
Anil Kumar Pathak and others), wherein he alleged that he was assaulted
by the respondents, who inflicted injuries upon him by sticks, fists and
punches. Not only the petitioner but one of his companions was also
assaulted and abused by the respondents. However, when he approached
the police station for lodging a first information report against the
respondents and to get himself medically examined, no action was taken
by the authorities. He thereafter instituted the complaint case as stated
above. Statements of the complainant-petitioner and his witnesses were
recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. All the witnesses have
consistently corroborated the prosecution story. The petitioner as well as
his companion, who was injured witness, were also examined during the
                                                        A227 No. 14160 of 2025
                               2


proceedings. However, his complaint was dismissed under Section 203
Cr.P.C. by holding that the allegations of the petitioner seem to be
exaggerated and that there was no injury report in support of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the absence of
an injury report was not due to any fault on the part of the petitioner but
was the result of inaction on the part of the police authorities, who refused
to produce him before a doctor for medical examination. He submitted
that he filed an application before the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, who
passed a direction to the Chief Medical Officer to examine the injuries of
the petitioner. Subsequently, he was medically examined on 18.03.2023.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner preferred Criminal
Revision No. 464 of 2024, (Jawaharlal Gaur vs. State of U.P. and others),
against the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge
(J.D.), New Court X/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur; however, the said
criminal revision was also dismissed on 09.07.2025 without considering
the grievances of the petitioner. He submitted that none of the courts
below have considered the allegations and statements of the complainant
and his witnesses. Therefore, the orders passed by both the courts are
liable to be set aside.

5. Sri Amrit Raj, learned A.G.A., submitted that the trial court has rightly
upheld that the allegations in the complaint, prima facie, appear to be
exaggerated. The learned trial court has also observed that the allegations
in the complaint are there that the petitioner was severely assaulted by
sticks and clubs, however, he was unable to produce any medical report.
Therefore, the findings of the trial court do not warrant any interference.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by
both the courts below.

7. It is apparent from a reading of the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by
the learned trial court that the complaint of the petitioner has been
dismissed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner was unable
to produce any injury report to substantiate the allegations and secondly
that the allegations seem to be exaggerated. This Court finds that merely
                                                                                            A227 No. 14160 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    observing that the allegations are exaggerated is not proper unless there
                                    are cogent reasons to substantiate such a finding. Similarly, the other
                                    reason that the petitioner has not produced the injury report is also not
                                    tenable because the petitioner from the very beginning has come up with
                                    the case that his request to get himself medically examined was turned
                                    down by the police authorities.

                                    8. In the given circumstances, this Court finds it fit to set aside the order
                                    dated 23.09.2024 as well as the order dated 09.07.2025. The learned trial
                                    court is directed to restore the Complaint Case No. 11069 of 2023,
                                    (Jawaharlal Gaur vs. Anil Kumar Pathak and others) to its original
                                    number and pass a fresh order after calling a report under Section 202(1)
                                    Cr.P.C. After such report is received before the court, the learned trial
                                    court shall consider the statements of the complainant and his witnesses
                                    as well as the report submitted under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.

                                    9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to
                                    pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made above.



                                                                                             (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    KJ




Digitally signed by :-
KAMARJAHAN ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad