Sohanlal Lodhi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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.

¶4

Court No. - 79

¶5

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

NA528 No. 46916 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

NA528 No. 46916 of 2025

¶17

3

¶18

Accordingly, the application is dismissed .

¶19

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶20

April 22, 2026 Md Faisal

¶21

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

Sohanlal Lodhi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohanlal Lodhi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Kanti Devi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjeet Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Tipu @ Ahtesham Ali and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Riyazul and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritik vs State of U.P. and Another