The Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons when issuing summons in response to a police report, provided there are sufficient grounds for proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

1. Heard Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manish Kumar Yadav, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present application has been filed under Section 528 BNSS with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause of the application. The prayer clause is delineated below:-

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash/set aside the Impugned Cognizance/Summoning order dated 28.05.2025, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jaunpur as well as to quash/set aside the impugned charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet No. A113/2025 dated 12.04.2025 and also to quash/set aside the entire proceedings of the Special Session Trial No. 207/2025 (State Vs. Akhilesh and others), under section 115(2), 352, 351(2), 117(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, arising out of case crime no. 74/2025 Police Station- Mungra Badshahpur, District-Jaunpur, against applicant, which is pending in the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jaunpur."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in respect of the alleged incident dated 13.03.2025, as mentioned in the written information given by opposite party no. 2, an FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 74 of 2025 against five named accused persons, including the present applicant, and 10–12 unknown persons under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 74 of the BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA , 2023 (for short 'BNS'), and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'SC/ ST (PA) Act') as amended in 2015 at Police Station -Mungra Badshahpur, District - Jaunpur.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the first information report was lodged after a delay of six days and no explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the informant for such inordinate delay. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 has alleged that he sustained several injuries in the incident, pursuant to which an injury report was prepared. The injury report mentions four visible injuries on the person of opposite party no. 2. In view of the nature of the injuries, opposite party no. 2 was referred to a radiologist, and an X-ray examination was conducted on 21.03.2025, wherein a fracture of the right clavicle lateral was reported (right shoulder region).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the FIR does not disclose the place of occurrence where the alleged incident is stated to have taken place. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2, in his statement recorded before the Investigating Officer under Section 180 of BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA , 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), improved the version of the F.I.R. to strengthen the prosecution case, thereafter, the charge-sheet was submitted only under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PA) Act and Section 117(2) of BNSS.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on the basis of the statement of opposite party no. 2, Sections 74 and 191(2) of the BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA , 2023 were deleted by the Investigating Officer. It is further contended that the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance in a mechanical and routine manner, without due application of judicial mind, and has summoned the applicant and other co-accused persons by a c