Allahabad High Court

SOHANLAL LODHI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 21 April 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The learned Magistrate acted in accordance with law and the application for quashing the charge‑sheet is dismissed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 22‑01‑2023 and the cognizance order dated 23‑04‑2024 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, in a case arising from FIR No. 17 of 2023 alleging assault and threats under IPC Sections 323 and 506. The applicants contended that the alleged injuries were simple, that no offence was made out, and that the magistrate had taken cognizance mechanically without applying judicial mind. The State opposed, arguing that the magistrate was required only to determine the existence of a prima facie case and that the charge‑sheet disclosed sufficient material to proceed. The High Court examined the medical report, the police investigation, and the charge‑sheet and found that the magistrate had acted in accordance with law and that a prima facie case existed. Consequently, the Court refused the prayer to set aside the order and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence without applying judicial mind.
Whether the material on record, including the charge‑sheet and medical report, establishes a prima facie case under IPC Sections 323 and 506.
Whether the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. for quashing the charge‑sheet and cognizance order is maintainable.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 506

Subjects

Section 528
B.N.S.S.
quashment of charge sheet
cognizance order
prima facie case
IPC 323
IPC 506
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46916 of 2025

Sohanlal Lodhi And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Kumar Bhatt, Ashif, Zafar Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Despite personal service none present on behalf of opposite party No.2

2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants and
learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for
quashing the charge sheet dated 22.1.2023 and cognizance/summoning
order dated 23.4.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur as
well as entire proceeding of Case No.8267 of 2024 arising out of Case
Crime No.17 of 2023 under Sections 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Radha Nagar, District Fatehpur.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a civil dispute is
pending between applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 before the Civil
Judge (J.D.), Fatehpur. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2
lodged a First Information Report, registered as Case Crime No. 17 of
2023, under Sections 323 and 506 IPC against the present applicants,
alleging that they assaulted him and extended threats to kill, resulting in
simple injuries. Learned counsel further submits that the medical
examination of opposite party no. 2 indicates that the injuries sustained
were simple in nature, and it cannot be said that the said injuries were
inflicted by the present applicants. After investigation, the Investigating
Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the applicants, and thereafter the
NA528 No. 46916 of 2025
2

learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence vide order dated
23.04.2024 without proper application of judicial mind. It is thus
submitted that no offence is made out against the applicants, and the
impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner. Therefore, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of the applicants and contended that the learned
Magistrate has passed the impugned cognizance order strictly in
accordance with law. It is submitted that, at the stage of taking
cognizance, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie
case is made out or not. He further submits that the charge sheet has been
filed after due investigation and the material collected therein clearly
discloses the commission of cognizable offences against the applicants.
There is no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order
passed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the present application is
liable to be dismissed.

6. From the record, it transpires that opposite party no. 2 lodged a First
Information Report, as Case Crime No.17 of 2023, under Sections 323
and 506 IPC against the applicants with an allegation that they assaulted
him, as a result of which he sustained injuries. It further appears from the
material on record that the injured/opposite party no. 2 was medically
examined, and as per the statement of Dr. V.M. Aarya, Fatehpur, the
injuries sustained by him were found to be simple in nature. The injury
report, thus, corroborates the prosecution version. During the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer found sufficient material to
proceed against the applicants and filed a charge sheet against the
applicants. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the police
report and material brought on record, took cognizance of the offence
vide order dated 23.04.2024.

7. Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds
that the learned Magistrate has proceeded in accordance with law. This
Court does not find any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned
order. Therefore, the prayer for setting aside the same is hereby refused.
NA528 No. 46916 of 2025
3

8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
April 22, 2026
Md Faisal

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…