Sunil Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sunil Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Case No.1310 of 2023 (State Vs. Sunil Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0039 of 2022 under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, Police Station Sridattganj, and the summoning order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur, should be quashed in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Court's answer

On a bare perusal of the injury report of opposite party no.2 dated 21.06.2022, which showed a lacerated wound 2 x 0.4 cm on the right temporal region with the doctor's opinion that the injury was caused by a hard and blunt object, whereas in the case of the applicants there was no serious injury, only complaint of pain and no external injury, no interference was required by the Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 482 Cr.P.C. — quashing of proceedings and summoning order — cross-FIR / counter-blast allegation — applicants sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.1310 of 2023 (State Vs. Sunil Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0039 of 2022, under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, Police Station Sridattganj, District Balrampur, and the summoning order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur. Held: on comparison of the injury reports, opposite party no.2 had a lacerated wound 2 x 0.4 cm on the right temporal region which the doctor opined was caused by a hard and blunt object, whereas the applicants had only complaint of pain with no external injury; therefore no interference was required in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Application devoid of merit and rejected. (Brij Raj Singh, J.; February 24, 2026)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1334 of 2026

Sunil Kumar and another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahendra Pal Chauhan, Rizwanuddin Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 16

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s) and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-opposite parties no.1 and 2.

The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.1310 of 2023, State Vs. Sunil Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.0039 of 2022, under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, Police Station Sridattganj, District Balramour and the summoning order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the Civil Judge(JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur.

In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.3 is dispensed with.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.1 had lodged an FIR on 21.06.2022 in Case Crime No.0021 of 2022, under Sections 427, 506, 504 and 323 IPC, at Police Station Sridattganj, District Balrampur against opposite party no.2 and other accused. The injury report is brought on record, which indicates that there is only complain of pain and injury is simple in nature. He further submits that as a counter blast, opposite party no.2 subsequently i.e. on 31.07.2022 lodged an FIR in Case Crime No.0039 of 2022, under Sections 323 and 506 IPC against the applicants. The injury report of opposite party no.2 has been brought on by way of supplementary affidavit, which indicates that he had received lacerated wound size 2 x 0.4 cm on right temporal region, 6 cm above right earlobe and complaint of pain all over the body. The doctor has opened that injury has been caused by hard and blunt

A482 No. 1334 of 2026

2

object. He further submits that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated and out of retaliation, opposite party no.2 has lodged the present FIR against the applicants just to settle his personal score.

A bare perusal of the injury report of opposite party no.2 dated 21.06.2022 indicates that he had received lacerated wound size 2 x 0.4 cm on right temporal region, 6 cm above right earlobe and complaint of pain all over the body. The doctor has opened that injury has been caused by hard and blunt object, whereas in the case of applicants, there is no serious injury and only complaint of pain has been mentioned nor there is any external injury. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

Application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly rejected.

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

February 24, 2026

Rao/-

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench