Allahabad High Court

RAKESH SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The magistrate correctly exercised jurisdiction by summoning the accused after finding a prima facie case, and the High Court has no power to quash the order at this stage.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash a summoning order dated 4 July 2024 and the entire proceeding in a case filed under Sections 323 and 504 IPC. They alleged false implication, claiming that the charge sheet was filed for non‑cognizable offences and that no prima facie case existed against them. The State opposed, contending that the magistrate correctly examined the charge sheet and found a prima facie case, as required at the stage of taking cognizance. The High Court examined the material and held that the dispute over facts and the defence of the accused could not be decided at this interlocutory stage; only the existence of a prima facie case was relevant. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court found no illegality or perversity in the magistrate’s order and therefore refused to set it aside. Consequently, the application under Section 528 was dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate standard for a magistrate to pass a summoning order under Section 528 B.N.S.S. – whether a prima facie case must be established?
Whether the charge sheet filed for non‑cognizable offences can be treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. for the purpose of summoning the accused?
Whether the High Court can interfere with the magistrate’s decision at the stage of taking cognizance?

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 2(d)
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504

Subjects

Section 528 application
summoning order
prima facie case
non-cognizable offence
charge sheet
quash proceedings
magistrate jurisdiction
investigation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 47701 of 2025

Rakesh Singh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Mohan Pandey, Om Prakash
Katiyar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and
Sri Jyoti Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for
quashing impugned summoning order dated 4.7.2024 as well as entire
proceeding of Case No.944 of 2024 (State Vs. Rakesh Singh & Anr.) in
N.C.R. No.56 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station
Nawab, District Farrukhabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have
been falsely implicated in the present case. The opposite party no. 2
lodged an N.C.R. being N.C.R. No.56 of 2022 under Sections 323 and
504 I.P.C., with the allegations that on 09.06.2022, the applicants
assaulted the opposite party no. 2, as a result of which he sustained
injuries. The injuries of the opposite party no. 2 were medically examined
and were found to be simple in nature. The Investigating Officer, after
obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Magistrate, started the
investigation. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After
completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the
applicants. He further submitted that the charge sheet was filed for non-
cognizable offences and the same was treated as a complaint case under
Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., and the learned Magistrate, vide order dated
NA528 No. 47701 of 2025
2

04.07.2024, summoned the applicants. It is further submitted that no
prima facie offence is made out against the applicants and the summoning
order has been passed without proper application of judicial mind.
Therefore, the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and
infirmity and is liable to be set aside.

4. 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 summoning 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 offences against the applicants. There is no
illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order passed by the
learned Magistrate. Therefore, the present application is liable to be
dismissed.

5. From the record, it transpires that opposite party no. 2 lodged an
N.C.R. being N.C.R. No.56 of 2022 under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C.
alleging that on 09.06.2022 the applicants assaulted him, as a result of
which he sustained injuries. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, after
obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Magistrate,
commenced the investigation. The Investigating Officer recorded the
statements of opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses under Section 161
Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted
against the applicants. Since the charge sheet related to non-cognizable
offences, the same was treated as a complaint case under Section 2(d)
Cr.P.C., and the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 04.07.2024,
summoned the applicants. The Magistrate has assigned detailed reasons
while passing the impugned summoning order.

6. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of
the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against
the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed
question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in
exercise of power conferred under Section 528 B.N.S.S. At this stage only
NA528 No. 47701 of 2025
3

prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme
Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866,
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar
Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another
(Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused
cannot be considered at this stage.

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
summoning order. Therefore, the prayer for setting aside the same is
hereby refused.

8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
May 7, 2026
Md Faisal

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…