Allahabad High Court
Uday Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:158211
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19924 of 2025
Uday Pratap Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Manoj Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 92
HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Instant application under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the applicant with prayer to quash the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.121492 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Rawatpur, District Kanpur Nagar by which discharge application filed by the applicant and has been dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are two FIRs allegedly in respect of the occurrence of same day. One FIR has been lodged at the instance of the applicant, vide Case Crime No.203 of 2022 dated 07.11.2022 time 16:50 hours against Pushpendra Singh, Mohit Singh, Sachin Singh, Pinku Singh, Man Singh and five unknown persons, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 325 IPC, regarding incident dateda 06.11.2022 at 09:00 am. The other FIR has been lodged at the instance of Smt. Madhuri Singh of accused side of the case against the applicant and three others which is registered vide Case Crime No.209 of 2022 dated 10.11.2022, time 11:45 hours, in which applicants Uday Pratap Singh, Lakhan Singh, Aman Singh and some unknown persons are implicated. This FIR has been lodged under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that present FIR lodged against the applicant and co-accused is nothing but a counterblast of earlier FIR lodged by the applicant against Jitendra Singh the husband of the informant Madhuri Singh and others, inasmuch as no date and time of incident has been mentioned therein. The applicant had filed an application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No..121492 of 2023, in which the anomalies in prosecution case and FIR has been specifically pointed out and learned trial court has dismissed the application, without considering the grounds mentioned in discharge application in proper perspective.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the present case is concocted version of the incident produced at the instance of accused side and the case was lodged at the instance of the applicant only to create a defence and a cross case. In fact, the incident mentioned in FIR of instant case is non-existent. He next submitted that in case FIR lodged at the instance of the applicant, the Investigating Officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet against accused persons, in which Sections 147 and 452 IPC are omitted. Even the informant Madhuri Singh in the present case has admitted in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that an FIR has been lodged against her side by Uday Pratap Singh. The applicant has already been enlarged on bail by orders of court below. In the present case co-accused Vinay Singh Parmar has been selected in U.P. Police as Constable on direct recruitment in the year 2023.
6. The co-accused, Lakhan Singh Parmar, Vinay Singh Parmar and Gambhir Singh have also challenged the summoning order dated dated 02.08.2023 passed against them alongwith present applicant in said criminal case vide Criminal Misc. Application under Section 528 BNSS No.20040 of 2025, is also listed today in this court.
7. The applicant Uday Pratap Singh had suffered grievous injury in the incident, which is revealed from X-ray report dated 07.11.2022. In his X-ray report fracture in Ulna Bone is seen. Whereas injuries of informant side as that of Pushpendra Singh and Man Singh are of simple nature.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant place reliance on a judgment of learned Single Judge in Jagat Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another in matter under Article 227 No.12234 of 2024 decided on 08.11.2024, wherein it is held that an error which is apparent on the face of record in shape of non-availability of the specific date and timing over the F.I.R. cannot be rectified at the stage of investigation and as such entire proceeding arising out of Case Crime No. 0166 of 2018, under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur are hereby set aside. However, it is made clear that the respondent no. 2 shall be at liberty to place information regarding any incident, if so happened, with specific date and time before the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the learned trial court has observed in the impugned order that there are cross cases with regard to same incident and it is required under law that cross cases should be tried together to to find out the truthfulness of version put forth by the parties.
10. In the present case, in the case cited above by learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention there is no mention of any cross case, but in the present case there are cross cases, in which both sides have suffered injuries. This is another matter that in FIR lodged at the instance of the applicant has suffered grievous injury. Whereas in the present case applicant is an accused; there are two persons from informant side who have suffered simple injuries. The date and time of occurrence is disclosed in FIR lodged at the instance of the applicant in Case Crime No.203 of 2033 and from perusal of two FIRs it is clear that the two FIRs are cross cases of each other and statement of witnesses in the present same date and time has been mentioned in respect of present case, as shown in FIR lodged at the instance of the accused Uday Pratap Singh in the cross case.
11. Learned trial court has also observed that only after adducing of evidence by the parties an opinion can be given with regard to fact that the incident propounded by which side is false and which side is correct.
12. The impugned order is reviseable as such, but the applicant did not file any criminal revision against the impugned order. The applicant has preferred present petition under Section 528 BNSS, against the impugned order on the grounds beyond purview of Section 528 BNSS.The present case is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested in this court under Section 528 BNSS.
13. I find force in submissions of learned A.G.A. a cognizable offence is made out on the basis of FIR version and there are injury reports in support thereof. There are cross cases with regard to same incident, therefore, non mention of date and time in present FIR will not go to the root of the case to afford the ground to quash the proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. Inasmuch as the date and time of incident has clearly surfaced in statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation.
14. However, the applicant is at liberty to assail the impugned order by way of revision before the court of session or this Court under Section 438 or 442 BNSS, as the case may be, if he is so advised.
15. The instant application under Section 528 BNSS is hear by dismissed with above observations.
(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)
September 9, 2025
Ashish/-
