The main legal point established is the requirement for the magistrate to apply judicial mind and consider evidence, particularly medical evidence, before passing a summoning order, and the need to adhere to the provisions of law in such decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 28.10.2022 passed by Ms.Shikha Singh, Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, District-Unnao by means of which the petitioners have been summoned under Section 325 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, district-Unnao in complaint no. 247 of 2022, case no. 2592 of 2021 under Section 325 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, district-Unnao.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the 11 persons along with the applicants on 26.3.2021 and the same was treated as complaint case. In the complaint case, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The statements of witness-Mahesh Kumar and Om Prakash were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 30.6.2022 and 20.7.2022 respectively. On the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Ms. Shikha Singh, Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, District-Unnao passed the summoning order dated 28.10.2022 without applying any judicial mind, as no medical examination report was submitted by the opposite party no. 2 in support of his submission, which is basic requirement for summoning the accused under Section 325 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that in this regard the applicant has filed questionnaire and even in the questionnaire, there is no medical examination on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in support of the his submission. Thus, the no offence under Section 325 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. Thus, the summoning order passed by the learned trial court is cryptic and non application of judicial mind. The summoning order, which was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is against the relevant sections of Indian Penal Code, therefore, the summoning order is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. is also agreed that without any medical evidence and without any documentary evidence regarding the injury report prima facie offence under Section 325 is not made out against the applicant.

5. The provision of Section 320 I.P.C. is quoted below:-

"320. Grievous hurt.—The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":—

(First) — Emasculation.

(Secondly) —Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

(Thirdly) — Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,

(Fourthly) —Privation of any member or joint.

(Fifthly) — Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.

(Sixthly) — Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

(Seventhly) —Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

(Eighthly) —Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits"

6. The provision of Section 325 I.P.C. is quoted below:-

"325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

7. On the controversy involved in present case, this court has passed the judgment in the case of Mahboob and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 2017 (98) ACC 593. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are given below:-

(6) In the case of Sonu Gupta Versus Deepak Gupta (2015) Vol.3 SCC 424, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that :-

"At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is