The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Saurabh Srivastava, set aside trial court orders rejecting a discharge application and framing charges against six applicants, holding that a Medical Board report ruling out grievous injuries must be considered while deciding a discharge plea, even if the subsequent further investigation conducted by the police was procedurally bad in law.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an FIR registered on May 9, 2024, at Police Station Govardhan, District Mathura, under Sections 147, 427, 352, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following an incident on May 6, 2024. Upon investigation, a chargesheet was filed on May 22, 2024, adding Sections 325 and 308 of the IPC based on an initial medico-legal examination report indicating fractures. Cognizance was taken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura, on May 31, 2024.
Prior to the chargesheet, Applicant No. 2 petitioned the District Magistrate, Mathura, requesting a re-medical examination. On May 31, 2024, the District Magistrate directed the Chief Medical Officer to constitute a Medical Board. On August 10, 2024, the Medical Board opined that the injured sustained no rib fractures or grievous hurt. Based on this, Applicant No. 2 sought further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura. Following an order dated November 7, 2024, a supplementary chargesheet was submitted on November 19, 2024, dropping Sections 325 and 308 IPC.
However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I (Offences against Women), Mathura, rejected the applicants’ discharge application on May 6, 2026, and framed charges under all sections, including Sections 325 and 308 IPC, on May 26, 2026. The applicants then approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Prakash Dwivedi and Sri Pranshu Dwivedi, argued that the initial chargesheet was submitted with undue haste and that the subsequent Medical Board specifically contradicted the original medical report by ruling out any fracture. They contended that the trial court erred by completely ignoring the supplementary chargesheet and Medical Board findings while deciding the discharge application and framing charges.
Opposing the plea, Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha, counsel for opposite party no. 2, assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, along with the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing for the State, argued that once cognizance was taken on May 31, 2024, the police authority had no legal standing to initiate further investigation upon an application by the accused under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Bohatie Devi (Dead) through LR Vs. State of U.P. and others [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 376], they submitted that accused persons have no right to seek further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
Furthermore, citing Pramod Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others [(2026) 5 SCC 308], they asserted that directing further investigation lies solely within the discretion of the court and that the District Magistrate possessed no authority to order a re-examination once cognizance had been taken.
Court’s Analysis
Addressing the legal arguments, the High Court observed that while the accused has no inherent right to seek further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., and the procedure adopted by the police authorities in conducting further investigation without court permission was bad in law, the constitution and findings of the Medical Board stand on a different footing.
The Court highlighted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bohatie Devi, noting:
“If the accused is aggrieved by the chargesheet in that case, the remedy available to him would be either to file the quashing petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC and/or to move an appropriate application for discharge before the learned Magistrate and it is for the High Court and/or the learned Magistrate as the case may be, to quash criminal proceedings or discharge the accused.”
The High Court affirmed that while further investigation without court permission post-cognizance was invalid, the Medical Board’s findings do not fall under the ambit of further investigation. The Court emphasized that a Medical Board consisting of three doctors carries higher authority than a single doctor’s initial report.
The High Court observed:
“The jurisprudence specifically defines that although the process of law adopted by a person seeking justice might be wrong but the essence of procedure determining the law in shape of rendering justice has to be taken into consideration by a judge.”
The Court further stated:
“If the further medico legal examination report expressed by Medical Board of doctors will not be taken into consideration by learned court concerned, that would be a gross injustice to both the parties irrespective of extension of favour to anyone and as such, order dated 06.05.2026 through which application for seeking discharge was dismissed along with order of framing charge, is liable to be set aside.”
Regarding the District Magistrate’s directive, the Court noted that the direction was issued on the same day cognizance was taken, meaning the order of cognizance was not within the knowledge of the District Magistrate, and no procedural prohibition prevented such a direction.
Decision of the Court
The High Court set aside the trial court’s orders dated May 6, 2026, and May 26, 2026. The Court granted liberty to the applicants to file a fresh discharge application incorporating the findings of the Medical Board within three weeks. The trial court has been directed to decide the fresh application within four weeks after giving due opportunity of hearing to all parties. The application was accordingly partly allowed.
Case Title: Jagdish @ Jagdish Prasad And 5 Others Versus State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 27098 of 2026
Bench: Justice Saurabh Srivastava
Date: July 31, 2026
