Allahabad High Court

RAM PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

Holding

The summoning order is set aside and the matter is remitted for a fresh order consistent with the injury report.

Summary

Ram Pratap Singh, the complainant, alleged that on 13 March 2025 he was forcibly stopped, robbed of Rs. 700, his mobile phone broken and assaulted with sticks, sustaining grievous injuries including a fracture of the scapula. He reported the incident to the police, who medically examined him, and filed an application under Section 173(4) BNSS, which was treated as a complaint. The trial court summoned the accused only under Sections 115(2) and 324(2) B.N.S., ignoring the injury report and not invoking the more serious Sections 117(2) and 109 B.N.S. The applicant contended that the summoning order was illegal and not in conformity with the injury report. The High Court held that the trial court failed to consider the injury report, set aside the summoning order dated 23‑02‑2026, and remitted the matter to the magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in summoning the accused only under Sections 115(2) and 324(2) B.N.S. despite the complainant's grievous injuries.
Whether the injury report must be considered in determining the appropriate sections for summoning under the BNSS.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 173(4), 324(2), 528

Subjects

Summoning order
Grievous injury
Section 528 BNSS
Criminal procedure
Injury report
Trial court error

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13522 of 2026

Ram Pratap Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Agraj Kumar Mishra, Raksha Chauhan,
Rishi Kant Rai, Upendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 82
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

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

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with
the prayer to modify the summoning order dated 23.02.2026 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Fatehpur, in
Complaint Case No. 5898 of 2025 (Ram Pratap Singh Vs. Shivam Singh
alias Lalla and others), under Sections 115(2), 324(2) B.N.S., Police
Station Laluati, District Fatehpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the
complainant of the aforesaid case. On 13.03.2025 both the accused
(opposite party Nos. 2 and 3) stopped him forcibly, looted Rs. 700/- and
broke his mobile phone and also they assaulted on his head with sticks,
due to which he sustained grievous injuries. For the alleged incident. The
applicant's brother informed the police and the police came to spot and
called him. He gave written application regarding the alleged incident and
the police got medically examined him. When F.I.R. could not be lodged
the applicant moved an application under Section 173(4) BNSS on
24.03.2025. The said application was treated as complaint. The applicant
adduced his oral as well as documentary evidence along with his injury
report, but without considering the nature of injuries sustained by him the
trial court has summoned the accused only under Section 115(2), 324(2)
BNS, rather they would be summoned by the trial court to face the trial
under Section 117(2), 109 BNS as he sustained fracture of spine of
scapula on right shoulder, which is grievous in nature. Thus, it has been
argued that the impugned summoning order is unjust, illegal and improper
as it is not in consonance with injury report of the injured/ applicant.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
NA528 No. 13522 of 2026
2

5. From perusal of impugned summoning order, it does appear that the
trial court has not considered the injury report of the injured while
summoning the accused persons as there is no any finding regarding
injuries sustained by the injured, rather the impugned summoning order
confines only with the allegation of snatching of mobile phone and loot of
seven hundred rupees.

6. In view of above facts and circumstances, the present application under
Section 528 BNSS is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated
23.02.2026 is hereby set aside.

7. The matter is remitted to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 1, Fatehpur to pass fresh order, strictly in accordance with law,
keeping in mind the observations made herein above.

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
April 20, 2026
Mustaqeem.

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…