State Of Up vs Nawab Singh Yadav And Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6851 of 2025
State of U.P. …..Revisionist(s)
Versus
Nawab Singh Yadav
and others
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Patanjali Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akshay Pratap, Amit Kumar Pandey,
Vijit Saxena
Reserved
Court No. – 2 A.F.R.
HON’BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON’BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
(DELIVERED BY : J.J. MUNIR, J.)
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the State assailing an
order of Ms. Shraddha Bhartiya, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kannauj, dated 20.09.2025, declining to take cognizance of the offence
on the basis of a charge-sheet submitted by the Police in Case Crime No.
361 of 2025, under Sections 351(3), 224, 132, 49, 232, 61(2), 308 (7)
and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNS), Police
Station Kotwali, District Kannauj, registered as Miscellaneous Case No.
1058 of 2025, besides issuing other directions.
2. A First Information Report giving rise to Case Crime No. 681 of
2025 under Section 76 BNS and Sections 7/8 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, for short) was

2
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
lodged formally in the name of Arvind, the father of the minor victim,
but actually by the victim herself, a girl, who shall be called A.
3. It is said in her FIR by A that she is fifteen years old, a resident of
Binaura Rampur, Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj. On 11.08.2024,
she had accompanied her aunt (bua) Pooja Tomar to Lucknow and they
returned to Tirwa from Lucknow at 11 O'clock in the night. They then
boarded an auto-rickshaw and went to Chandan Mahavidyalaya, where
they met Nawab Singh Yadav. Nawab Singh Yadav promised a job to the
victim in the medical college and it is for the said purpose they were
called to the Chandan Mahavidyalaya. During this time, when her aunt
(Bua) went to the bathroom, Nawab Singh Yadav took off the victim's
clothes, a fact she reported to her aunt immediately. Her aunt called the
Police at Dial 112 Facility. It is also reported that Nawab Singh Yadav
touched the victim's breast. Necessary action in the matter, after
registration of the crime, was requested.
4. The Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, had
the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) before the learned
Judicial Magistrate and, in that statement, the allegation of rape surfaced
against the accused Nawab Singh Yadav. Further on, during
investigation, the victim was medically examined by Dr. Swastika
Shalini on 13.08.2024, who prepared a medico-legal examination report.
A DNA sample of the victim of rape for the purpose of verification was
sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, UP, Agra.

3
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
5. The Forensic Science Laboratory submitted their report dated
31.08.2024, where exhibits nos. 1 to 10 belonged to the victim, whereas
those numbered as exhibits nos. 11 to 17 were from the accused, Nawab
Singh Yadav. It was reported that the biological material, found on
exhibits nos. 6 and 7 belonging to the victim, was of male origin and was
similar to exhibit no. 17, that is to say, Nawab Singh Yadav’s blood.
Likewise, there were similarities found which established, prima facie,
through the material carrying the DNA, a case of rape.
6. The Investigating Officer, according to the State's case, carried out
an extensive and fair investigation and after collecting cogent material,
including the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and
183 BNSS, call detail records, video footage, bank statements, DNA
reports and other relevant material, submitted a charge-sheet against
opposite party no. 1 and co-accused Pooja Tomar for offences punishable
under Sections 65(1), 115(2), 351(3), 61(1) and 238(b) BNS and
Sections 3/4(2), 17 and 18 POCSO Act, whereas that against opposite
party no. 2 under Section 238(b) BNS. The charge-sheet is one dated
19.09.2024. The trial commenced as Sessions Trial No. 1006 of 2024,
before the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kannauj.
7. In the said case, Dr. Swastika Shalini, who medically examined
the victim, was summoned by the Trial Judge to testify before him. The
witness, who is a government employee, was to appear before the Trial
Judge in discharge of her official duties, but was harassed by the accused
in the present case in order to suborn her and make her testify in his

4
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
favor. The aforesaid witness, Dr. Swastika Shalini, entered the witness
box in Sessions Trial No. 1006 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.
681 of 2024, on 19.03.2025, as PW-11. She was threatened by the
accused and was told that after release of opposite party no. 1 from jail,
three persons would be done to death. With regard to crime committed
against her on that day, an FIR was registered on 20.05.2025 as Case
Crime No. 361 of 2025 under Sections 224, 132, 49, 232, 61(2), 351(3)
BNS and four named accused, including opposite party nos. 1 and 2.
8. What the revisionist further says is that on 19.03.2025, the first
informant had earlier made a complaint before the Superintendent of
Police on 23.03.2025. On the said complaint, a preliminary inquiry was
conducted by the then Circle Officer, City, Kannauj, who submitted his
report dated 12.04.2025. The legal opinion on the aforesaid report was
sought from the In-charge, Joint Director (Prosecution), who submitted a
report that from the perusal of material, offences punishable under
Sections 351(3)/224/132/49/232 BNS are prima facie made out.
9. In his report, the Circle Officer, City, had recommended
registration of an FIR in the present case. On the basis of the inquiry
report, the Superintendent of Police, Kannauj, vide order dated
20.05.2025, directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali,
District Kannauj, to register an FIR in the present case. It is, in this
manner, that the FIR, giving rise to the present crime, was registered on
20.05.2025. After a thorough investigation into the crime, a charge-sheet
against opposite party no. 1 was submitted on 11.07.2025 for offences

5
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
punishable under Sections 351(3), 224, 132, 49, 234, 61(2), 308(7) and
111 BNS. The investigation, as regards the other co-accused, remained
pending. The aforesaid charge-sheet was forwarded to the Circle Officer,
City, who put up objections and directed the Investigating Officer to
conduct investigation on the points raised.
10. The Investigating Officer then proceeded with the investigation
again and found that there was no CCTV camera installed in the official
accommodation of the first informant. He was told by the first informant
and her husband that at the time of the incident, nobody else was present
in the house and, as such, there was no other witness of the incident. The
Investigating Officer attempted to interrogate some persons in the
hospital premises, but no one cooperated.
11. On 31.08.2025, the Investigating Officer again attempted to
interrogate some independent witnesses from the hospital premises such
as Manjesh Kumar, Cleaner Supervisor of the District Hospital. Manjesh
Kumar stated that he had heard that the first informant of the present
case was threatened in order to compel her to testify in favor of opposite
party nos. 1 and 2 and, thereafter, an SCD 18 dated 31.08.2025 was
recorded, substantiating the earlier charge-sheet. The investigation
regarding the other two co-accused, Kishore Dohre and Pooja Tomar,
was pending. The charge-sheet dated 11.07.2025 and, subsequent leafs
of the case diary, were submitted before the Presiding Officer, that is to
say, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, on 02.09.2025. Later
on, this case was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 1058 of 2025 in

6
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj. The learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 20.09.2025, declined to take
cognizance of the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet and dismissed
Miscellaneous Case No. 1058 of 2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the
present revision has been preferred by the State.
12. We have heard Mr. Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Rupak Chaubey, learned Counsel for the
revisionist, Mr. Vijit Saxena, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party
nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel on behalf of
opposite party no. 3 and perused the record, including the order
impugned.
13. The thrust of Mr. Goyal's submission, in support of this revision,
is that the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, has
scripted thirty one pages going into the details of collection of evidence
and analyzing its worth as if holding a mini trial. He submits that at the
stage of cognizance, the learned Magistrate is only required to apply his
judicial mind to the material on record and, if a prima facie case is made
out, the Magistrate is obliged to take cognizance and issue process. The
learned Magistrate cannot sift through evidence, appreciating various
aspects thereof at the stage of taking cognizance.
14. Learned Counsel, Mr. Vijit Saxena, appearing for opposite party
no. 1 and Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for
opposite party no. 3, have supported the order and said that the material

7
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
collected being all fabricated and the investigation done in an unfair
manner, the learned Magistrate has rightly refused to take cognizance.
15. Elucidating on the submissions, learned Counsel for the opposite
party have drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the learned
Magistrate has refused to take cognizance on ground that remand of
opposite party nos. 1 and 2 was never secured by the Police in the
present crime and without securing a remand in the crime, a charge-sheet
has been submitted.
16. Learned Counsel for the opposite party have also drawn the
Court's attention to the remarks of the learned Magistrate that the first
and second opposite parties’ remand was sought in another case from the
learned Special Judge (Gangsters Act), without bringing to notice of the
learned Judge the fact that the present crime was pending before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and after that remand, from the learned
Special Judge (Gangsters Act), statements under Section 180 BNSS,
relating to the present crime, have been recorded. There are other
remarks of the Magistrate to reach her conclusions that have been
highlighted during the hearing by the learned Counsel appearing for the
opposite party.
17. A perusal of the impugned FIR indeed shows many remarks in the
first part relating to the irregularities in remand which have little to do
with the principle issue if, from the material collected, a prima facie
case, worth taking cognizance, is made out.

8
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
18. In the next lap of the order impugned, we find that the addition of
Sections by the Police in the charge-sheet have been commented upon
by the learned Magistrate as ones not supported by the FIR, the
statements and those additionally recorded during investigation. There is
a remark that this is indicative of poor forensic knowledge on the part of
the police officers requiring training. It may be so, but, at the stage of
taking cognizance, we are of opinion that these remarks were not
required.
19. It is also remarked that the concerned Investigating Officer, the
Station House Officer and the Circle Officer, City, have included an
offence in the FIR under Section 232 BNS but violating, as they have
done, the mandatory provisions of Section 215 BNSS, which reveals
non-application of mind, negligence in performance of duties and
violation of the mandatory provisions of the law. It is then said in the
order impugned that during investigation Section 308(7) BNS and
extortion have been noted to be continuously committed by the accused
and, on its basis, they have added Section 111 BNS to the offences
charged, whereas the offence under Section 308(7) BNS falls under
Chapter XVII of the BNS, which relates to crimes against property.
20. It is also remarked in that connection that there is nothing to show
that any attack or any criminal force was used vis-a-vis the informant by
the accused or a criminal conspiracy amongst the accused proven from
the evidence. It is also said that there is no such allegation in the FIR as
well. It is, therefore, submitted that the basis on which the charge-sheet

9
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
has been filed, while ignoring the contents of the FIR and the statements
recorded during the investigation, is unclear. This reflects a lack of
proper forensic and understanding on the part of the investigating police
officers. There is also a finding to the effect that it is to be noted that the
FIR was lodged on 20.05.2025. The statements of the informant and Dr.
Ravindra Kumar recorded in CD-1 on 20.05.2025 at pages nos. 16 and
17, whereas additional statements were recorded one and a half months
later in CD-8 dated 06.07.2025, and, therefore, the fact about the
accused extending threats surfaced one and a half months later through
the additional statements. There are similar remarks touching upon the
merits of the material collected in support of the prosecution case, as
though the learned Magistrate had undertaken an appreciation of the
evidence at the pre-trial stage, apart from making adverse observations
regarding the forensic knowledge of the investigating officers.
21. What is required to be done at the stage of taking cognizance is,
by far well-settled in the law and it is certainly not that what the learned
Magistrate has done while passing the order impugned. In this
connection, reference may be made to Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State
of Maharashtra and others (2019) 14 SCC 350, In Kamal Shivaji
Pokarnekar (supra), it has been observed:
“3. The trial court recorded the statement of the
husband of the appellant and directed issuance of
process to the respondents. The respondents filed a
revision challenging the issuance of process against
them which was dismissed. The High Court allowed the
writ petition filed by the respondents, holding that
the dispute is of a civil nature, and criminal
proceedings against the respondents would be an abuse

10
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
of the process of law. The High Court recorded a
finding that the disputed document cannot be stated to
be a sham document, as Shamrao during his lifetime
stated on oath that he had handed over the possession
of the land to the respondents. The submission made on
behalf of the respondents that the matter is entirely
of a civil nature was accepted by the High Court.
4. The only point that arises for our consideration
in this case is whether the High Court was right in
setting aside the order by which process was issued.
It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage
of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to
apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking
cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to
find out whether a prima facie case has been made
out for summoning the accused persons. The learned
Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of
the material or evidence in support of the
complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake
the exercise to find out whether the materials would
lead to a conviction or not.”
(Emphasis by Court)
22. The principle was earlier laid down by a three Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court in Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424.
23. A reference, in this connection, may also be made to Rashmi Kumar
(Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC 397, where it was
observed:
“14……...It is fairly settled legal position that at
the time of taking cognizance of the offence, the
Court has to consider only the averments made in the
complaint or in the charge-sheet filed under Section
173, as the case may be. It was held in State of
Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla that it is not open for
the Court to sift or appreciate the evidence at that
stage with reference to the material and come to the
conclusion that no prima facie case is made out for
proceeding further in the matter. It is equally
settled law that it is open to the Court, before
issuing the process, to record the evidence and on
consideration of the averments made in the complaint
and the evidence thus adduced, it is required to
find out whether an offence has been made out. On

11
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
finding that such an offence has been made out and
after taking cognizance thereof, process would be
issued to the respondent to take further steps in
the matters. If it is a charge-sheet filed under
Section 173 of the Code, the facts stated by the
prosecution in the charge-sheet, on the basis of the
evidence collected during investigation, would
disclose the offence for which cognizance would be
taken by the court to proceed further in the matter.
Thus it is not the province of the court at that
stage to embark upon and sift the evidence to come
to the conclusion whether offence has been made out
or not. The learned Judge, therefore, was clearly in
error in attempting to sift the evidence with
reference to the averments made by the respondent in
the counter-affidavit to find out whether or not
offence punishable under Section 406 IPC had been
made out.”
24. The other point that was argued by Mr. Goyal is also well settled
in law. He has objected to the fact that whereas the accused were heard
at the stage of taking cognizance, a procedure, wholly impermissible in
law, the impugned order has been passed by the learned Magistrate
without issuing notice to the informant or hearing her which is
mandatory because, by the refusal of cognizance, proceedings of the
case launched by her would terminate and it is she who is the person
aggrieved by this course of action.
25. We agree with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Goyal as well. In
this connection, reference may be made to a three Judge Bench decision
of the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and
another, (1985) 2 SCC 537, where it has been held:
“4. Now, when the report forwarded by the officer-
in-charge of a police station to the Magistrate
under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 comes up for
consideration by the Magistrate, one of two
different situations may arise. The report may
conclude that an offence appears to have been

12
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
committed by a particular person or persons and in
such a case. the Magistrate may do one of three
things: (1) he may accept the report and take
cognizance of the offence and issue process or (2)
he may disagree with the report and drop the
proceeding or (3) he may direct further
investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156
and require the police to make a further report. The
report may on the other hand state that, in the
opinion of the police, no offence appears to have
been committed and where such a report has been
made, the Magistrate again has an option to adopt
one of three courses: (1) he may accept the report
and drop the proceeding or (2) he may disagree with
the report and taking the view that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding further, take
cognizance of the offence and issue process or (3)
he may direct further investigation to be made by
the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156.
Where, in either of these two situations, the
Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence
and to issue process, the informant is not
prejudicially affected nor is the injured or in case
of death, any relative of the deceased aggrieved,
because cognizance of the offence is taken by the
Magistrate and it is decided by the Magistrate that
the case shall proceed. But if the Magistrate
decides that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes
the view that though there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against some, there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against others mentioned in
the First Information Report, the informant would
certainly be prejudiced because the First
Information Report lodged by him would have failed
of its purpose, wholly of in part. Moreover, when
the interest of the informant in prompt and
effective action being taken on the First
Information Report lodged by him is clearly
recognised by the provisions contained in sub-
section (2) of Section 154, sub-section (2) of
Section 157 and sub-section (2)(ii) of Section 173,
it must be presumed that the informant would equally
be interested in seeing that the Magistrate takes
cognizance of the offence and issues process,
because that would be culmination of the First
Information Report lodged by him. There can,
therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration
of the report made by the officer-in-charge of a
police station under sub-section (2)(i) of Section

13
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take
cognizance of the offence and issue process, the
informant must be given an opportunity of being
heard so that he can make his submissions to
persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the
offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the
view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a
report is forwarded under sub-section (2)(i) of
Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the
offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view
that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against some of the persons mentioned in the First
Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice
to the informant and provide him an opportunity to
be heard at the time of consideration of the report.
It was urged before us on behalf of the respondents
that if in such a case notice is required to be
given to the informant, it might result in
unnecessary delay on account of the difficulty of
effecting service of the notice on the informant.
But we do not think this can be regarded as a valid
objection against the view we are taking, because in
any case the action taken by the police on the First
Information Report has to be communicated to the
informant and a copy of the report has to be
supplied to him under sub-section (2)(i) of Section
173 and if that be so, we do not see any reason why
it should be difficult to serve notice of the
consideration of the report on the informant.
Moreover, in any event, the difficulty of service of
notice on the informant cannot possibly provide any
justification for depriving the informant of the
opportunity of being heard at the time when the
report is considered by the Magistrate.”
26. In this case, it is true that no notice was issued to the informant
and the Magistrate proceeded to refuse cognizance and terminated the
proceedings, thus prejudicing the informant's interest without hearing
her. So far as the remarks against the police officers are concerned, we
are of opinion that since the order impugned is itself not sustainable, no
useful purpose would be served by examining the wisdom of the learned
Magistrate's remarks.

14
CRLR No. 6851 of 2025
27. Upon a perusal of the police report, together with the case diary
and the material collected during investigation, it is a clear case where
the order refusing cognizance has been made by the learned Magistrate
committing a manifest error of law in embarking upon a mini trial as if it
were, to find out the truth of the allegations. The stage of trial is well
recognized in criminal procedure and that certainly had not arrived to
require the Magistrate to venture into an analysis of all the material that
she has done. A case, prima facie, worth proceeding is clearly made out
and this is all that is required at the stage of taking cognizance.
28. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 20.09.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kannauj in Miscellaneous Case No. 1058 of 2025 is hereby set aside and
the matter stands restored to the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kannauj for making fresh orders on the police report, bearing in mind
the remarks in this judgment.
(Tarun Saxena, J) (J.J. Munir, J)
July 01, 2026
Prashant D.
Digitally signed by :-
PRASHANT DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad