# Sarfaraz & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 593 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-03-06 - **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sarfaraz-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45862 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote 504 I.P.C., subsequently, without moving an Application u/s 155 (2) Cr.P.C.-same occurance-registered u/s 323, 504, 308 IPCalleged illegal-initially injuries opined to be simple-but later-he was taken to another hospital-subsequent report makes clear-injuries grave-chargesheet rightly filed u/s 308 IPCMagistrate rightly took cognizance. Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9) ## Text 6 All. Sarfaraz & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 593 ---------- (2020)06ILR A593 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J. Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1513 of 2020 (Criminal) Sarfaraz & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. A. Initially- Non Cogniable Report filed u/s 323, 504 I.P.C., subsequently, without moving an Application u/s 155 (2) Cr.P.C.-same occurance-registered u/s 323, 504, 308 IPCalleged illegal-initially injuries opined to be simple-but later-he was taken to another hospital-subsequent report makes clear-injuries grave-chargesheet rightly filed u/s 308 IPCMagistrate rightly took cognizance. Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9) (Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.) 1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with a prayer for setting aside impugned order dated 10.12.2019 of court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Aligarh, passed in Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2019 along with cognizance taking order dated 02.07.2019, passed by court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 1034 of 2019, under Section 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Akarabad, District Aligarh. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for State. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that it was failure of appreciation of facts and law, placed before both the courts below. Initially a report of non-cognizable offence was filed under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. Subsequently, without moving an application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., the same occurrence was registered for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., wherein investigation resulted submission of charge sheet, as above, but injuries were found to be simple in first medico legal report, followed by subsequent medico legal report as well as C.T. Scan, whereas a cross case on behalf of present petitioners are there against present opposite side. This cognizance was taken for offence punishable, as above, whereas no evidence for offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. was there. This cognizance taking order was challenged before court of revision, which was decided by revisional court, as above, wherein revision was dismissed. Hence, both the courts below failed to appreciate facts, placed on record. Hence, under power of General Superintendence of High Court over Subordinate Courts in Uttar Pradesh, this petition is with above prayer. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the petition with this contention that injured was having injuries, written in medico legal report, and still he is under treatment for it. 5. From the very perusal of first information report, lodged on 22.05.2018, as non-cognizable offence information report, under Section 155 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that present petitioners were accused in it and they have been assigned role of giving assault to Noor Hassan on 11.05.2018 at about 1 P.M., under joint 594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES mens rea, with common intention. When Irfan tried to intervene. He too was badly beaten by them. He was under medical treatment. Meaning thereby, at that very time, it was written that accused persons have badly assaulted them, causing grievous hurt on 11.05.2018 and Irfan was under treatment in hospital till above date of 22.05.2018. Meaning thereby, for about 10 days, he was under treatment in the hospital, even then, this non-cognizable report was lodged, which shows the error apparent in registering of above case crime number. However, it is not to be commented by this Court, because subsequently this was cured by registering first information report for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 308 I.P.C. on the information of same day on 24.01.2019. The medico legal report of Irfan Khan, medically examined on 11.05.2018 at 4.30 P.M., was there, wherein injuries were (i) Lacerated wound 4cm x 1.5cm middle part of right and left M deep V type parietal region (ii) Lacerated wound 2.5cm x 0.5cm left side of occipital region 8.5cm far from lateral ear (iii) complaint of pain over back side (4) Traumatic swelling 3cm x 2cm just below left eyebrow (v) Lacerated wound 1.0 x 2cm front part of middle finger. Though, these injuries were opined to be simple, but it was a medical report of hospital, where he was under treatment i.e. J.N. Medical College Hospital, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, when general condition of patient was unstable with his condition, written in this report, and thereafter in his local examination, those lacerated wounds over forehead fronto parietal region were found, resulting unconsciousness and agitated, which was confirmed by CT scan and X-ray, thereafter, he was referred for Neurosurgeon. The other injuries too over occipital region and suspected to be grievous, for which C.T. Scan was referred. In C.T. Scan the large extra-axial hyper density with CT value of blood overlying the right fronto parietal lobe 8/0 extra-axial bleed (maximum thickness 1.6cm) with mass effect in the form of effacement of cortical sulei of B/L (R>L) Cerebral Hemisphere and midline shift of 8mm towards left was there. Meaning thereby, there was abnormality in above hemisphere and it was under above injury, for which C.T. Scan was referred. Hence seat, size and nature of injuries found in C.T. Scan was fully sufficient, for filing of charge sheet, for offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed and Magistrate has taken cognizance for these offences, on the basis of evidence in case diary, because of which, learned revisional court has dismissed revision and it was with full reason. 6. There seems to be no illegality or irregularity in either of order of lower court. Accordingly, this petition merits its dismissal. The petition is dismissed as such. ---------- (2020)06ILR A594 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. Matters Under Article 227 No. 1518 of 2020 (Civil) Smt. Phoola Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Smt. Bhagwan Dei & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Nasiruzzaman, Sri Mohit Kumar Jaiswal