The absence of medical evidence precludes prosecution under serious charges, emphasizing the need for a Magistrate to apply legal standards before summoning an accused.

JUDGMENT :

Raj Beer Singh, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, in Court today, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of entire proceedings, including the summoning order dated 16.06.2023, of Complaint Case No. 104655 of 2021 (Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Prateek Singh), under Section - 326, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Kalyanpur, District - Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th, Kanpur Nagar.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is son-in-law of opposite party no.2 and that there was matrimonial dispute between applicant and his wife and in that regard some cases were pending. The allegation that on 14.11.2020, the applicant came at the house of complainant and assaulted the complainant and his son is wholly false. There is no medical examination report of complainant or any other alleged injured. It was submitted that in the absence of any medical examination report, the applicant cannot be prosecuted for offence under Section - 326 I.P.C.. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have opposed the application and submitted that complainant has made clear allegations that on 14.11.2020, the applicant along with his brother, came at the house of complainant and he has assaulted the complainant and others and he has caused injuries to the son of complainant with a pointed weapon and that version is supported by the witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. It was stated that the version of complainant is also supported by the C.C.T.V. footage of the house of complainant. The incident took place during COVID-19 pandemic period and due to that reason police did not get the complainant and his son Akshay medically examined. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against applicant.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint and evidence led in support of the same. The Magistrate has to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749 , the Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue. In para (28), it was held as under :-

"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefu