Dismissed¶28

Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2025NA528/19924/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS 2023; quashing of proceedings refused; dismissal of discharge application; Section 239 CrPC discharge; FIR without date and time; counterblast/cross FIRs of same incident; Case Crime No. 209 of 2022 P.S. Rawatpur Kanpur Nagar; injury reports, grievous vs simple injuries; Section 161 CrPC statement; Jagat Singh v. State of U.P. (Art. 227) distinguished; revisable order, revision proper remedy; Section 438 or 442 BNSS revision; summoning order dated 02.08.2023 challenged by co-accused in NA528 No. 20040 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; application dismissed, with liberty to assail the impugned order by way of revision before the court of session or this Court under Section 438 or 442 BNSS. ¶28

Uday Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; application dismissed, with liberty to assail the impugned order by way of revision before the court of session or this Court under Section 438 or 442 BNSS.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Case Crime No. 209 of 2022 can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the ground that the FIR does not mention the date and time of the incident and is a counterblast/cross case. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The impugned order is revisable, but the applicant did not file any criminal revision against it.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since there are cross cases with regard to the same incident, the non-mention of date and time in the present FIR does not go to the root of the case and affords no ground to quash the proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

¶13

Key takeaways

Finding force in the A.G.A.'s submissions, the Court held that a cognizable offence is made out on the basis of the FIR version and there are injury reports in support thereof.ratio¶13
The date and time of the incident has clearly surfaced in the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, negating the defect relied upon for quashing.ratio¶13
The applicant preferred the present petition under Section 528 BNSS on grounds beyond the purview of Section 528 BNSS; this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the court under Section 528 BNSS.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HC (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.) — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 19924 of 2025 (Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another), dismissed on 09.09.2025. The applicant sought quashing of the order dated 07.05.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.121492 of 2023 (Case Crime No. 209 of 2022, Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Rawatpur) dismissing his discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., pleading that the FIR lacked date and time of incident and was a counterblast to his own earlier FIR (Case Crime No. 203 of 2022). Held: there are cross FIRs of the same incident with injuries on both sides (applicant grievous, informant side simple per the record); a cognizable offence is made out on the FIR version supported by injury reports; non-mention of date and time in the FIR does not go to the root of the case and is no ground to quash, the date and time having surfaced in witness statements recorded during investigation. Reliance on Jagat Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (Art. 227 No.12234 of 2024, decided 08.11.2024) was distinguished as that case involved no cross cases. The impugned order being revisable and no revision having been filed, the petition lay beyond the purview of Section 528 BNSS; the applicant was left at liberty to seek revision under Section 438 or 442 BNSS.

¶1

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
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Manoj Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Court No. - 92

¶8

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶9

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.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent and perused the material available on record.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

NA528 No. 19924 of 2025

¶14

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

NA528 No. 19924 of 2025

¶22

¶23

of the accused Uday Pratap Singh in the cross case.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

The instant application under Section 528 BNSS is hear by dismissed with above observations.

¶29

September 9, 2025 Ashish/-

¶30

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 07.05.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.121492 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2022, Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Rawatpur, District Kanpur Nagar), by which the discharge application filed by the applicant was dismissed.¶9
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar · 07.05.2025
Prior proceeding
Cross FIR registered as Case Crime No.203 of 2022 dated 07.11.2022 (time 16:50 hours) at the instance of the applicant 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 dated 06.11.2022 at 09:00 am.¶11
Prior proceeding
Counter FIR at the instance of Smt. Madhuri Singh (accused side) against Uday Pratap Singh, Lakhan Singh, Aman Singh and some unknown persons, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC — the basis of the present case; counsel contends it is a counterblast to the applicant's earlier FIR lodged against Jitendra Singh (husband of the informant) and others.¶11
Prior proceeding
Applicant filed a discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No..121492 of 2023, pointing out anomalies in the prosecution case and FIR; the trial court dismissed it (the impugned order).¶12
Prior proceeding
After investigation in the FIR lodged at the applicant's instance, charge-sheet submitted with Sections 147 and 452 IPC omitted; informant Madhuri Singh admitted in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that an FIR was lodged against her side by Uday Pratap Singh; applicant already enlarged on bail by orders of court below; co-accused Vinay Singh Parmar selected in U.P. Police as Constable (direct recruitment) in 2023.¶15
Prior proceeding
Co-accused Lakhan Singh Parmar, Vinay Singh Parmar and Gambhir Singh also challenged the summoning order dated 02.08.2023 passed against them alongwith the present applicant in the same criminal case, vide Criminal Misc. Application under Section 528 BNSS No.20040 of 2025, listed the same day in this court.¶16
Prior proceeding
Per the A.G.A., the trial court observed in the impugned order that there are cross cases with regard to the same incident and that, as required under law, cross cases should be tried together to test the truthfulness of each side's version.¶19
Prior proceeding
Trial court further observed that only after evidence is adduced by the parties can an opinion be formed as to which side's version of the incident is false and which correct.¶24

Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases