PARAVIND KUMAR VISHWAKARMA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20483 of 2025

Paravind Kumar Vishwakarma And 3 Others
                                                        .....Applicant(s)
                                Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Opposite
                                                                 Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Byas Kumar Prasad, Suresh Kumar
                               Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

Court No. - 82
              HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 for
quashing the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate, Chakiya, in Case No. 966 of 2022, under
Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Shahabganj, District
Chandauli.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially a Non-
Cognizable Report dated 07.08.2019 was lodged by the informant
under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. Thereafter, upon an application
moved by the informant, investigation was directed by the learned
Magistrate and pursuant thereto charge-sheet dated 11.11.2021
came to be submitted against the applicants. It is further submitted
that earlier cognizance taken on the said police report vide order
dated 14.06.2022 was challenged before this Court and the same
was quashed with the observation that in matters arising out of an
NCR, the police report submitted after investigation is to be treated as
a complaint case at the stage of taking cognizance.

4. It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid specific
observations made by this Court, the learned court concerned has
again passed the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 without following
the procedure prescribed for complaint cases and without recording
                                                    NA528 No. 20483 of 2025
                              2


statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 223
BNSS), therefore, the impugned order is wholly illegal and
unsustainable in the eyes of law.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the
impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity
inasmuch as proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C. (Corresponding
Section 223 BNSS) clearly provides that where the complaint has
been made by a public servant acting or purporting to act in
discharge of his official duties, the learned Magistrate is not required
to examine the complainant and witnesses on oath before proceeding
further in the matter. It is thus submitted that the learned court
concerned has rightly proceeded in accordance with law and no
interference by this Court is warranted.

6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. On the perusal of record, it transpires that after lodging of the NCR,
investigation was directed by the Magistrate concerned and pursuant
thereto police report/charge-sheet came to be submitted against the
applicants. Earlier order taking cognizance was quashed by this
Court with an observation that the police report submitted in
pursuance of investigation arising out of an NCR is to be treated as a
complaint case at the stage of cognizance. So far as the grievance of
the applicants regarding non-compliance of Section 200 Cr.P.C.
(Corresponding Section 223 BNSS) is concerned, proviso (a) to
Section 200 Cr.P.C. specifically provides that where a complaint is
made by a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of
his official duties, the Magistrate is not bound to examine the
complainant and witnesses upon oath before issuance of process. In
the present case, the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned
order has proceeded in accordance with the aforesaid statutory
provision and specifically mentioned section 200 Cr.P.C.
(Corresponding Section 223 BNSS) in the impugned order. This court
does not find any perversity and illegality in the impugned order.

8. It is well settled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS
                                                                                       NA528 No. 20483 of 2025
                                                                 3


                                    is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. At this stage, this
                                    Court does not find any such illegality, perversity or abuse of process
                                    of law warranting interference in exercise of inherent powers.

                                    9. In view of above, this court does not find any good ground to
                                    exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 528 BNSS.

                                    10. The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly,
                                    dismissed.



                                    March 17, 2026
                                    v.k. updh.
                                                                                (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKRAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad