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. 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 he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. (Para 8) " (7) In a recent judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court on 14.12.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.1225 of 2016 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9318 of 2012) Abhijit Pawar vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalakar & Anr. (Para 8) " (7) In a recent judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court on 14.12.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.1225 of 2016 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9318 of 2012) Abhijit Pawar vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalakar & Anr. It was held that the admitted position in law is that in those cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process. Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was amended in the year by the Code of Criminal Procedure(Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from 22nd June, 2006 by adding the words that ''and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction'. There is a vital purpose or objective behind this amendment, namely, to ward off false complaints against such persons residing at a far off places in order to save them from unnecessary harassment. Thus, the amended provisions casts an obligation on the Magistrate to conduct inquiry or direct investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected.------ (9) In Mehmood UI Rehmand vs. Khazir Mohammad Tund (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124; it was held as under : "20. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] to set in motion the process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter. 22. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] to set in motion the process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter. 22. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC followed by Section 204 CrPC should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure or mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment." Emphasis added." 8. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment." Emphasis added." 8. Without entering into the merit of the case, keeping in view of the above cited case law, considering the submission of the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the provision of Section 320 I.P.C. Grievous hurt has been defined under Section 320 I.P.C. Now the question arises whether after the consideration of ingredients in Section 320 I.P.C. the prima facie offence is made out or not. Without any injury report of the injured or any documentary evidence inference cannot be drawn that the offence under Section 325 is made out or not. Thus, in the present case learned trial court passed the order without considering the ingredients of grievous hurt, therefore, the impugned summoning order has been passed mechanically without application of judicial mind. Consequently, the order passed by the trial court is cryptic in nature and the summoning order was passed by the Magistrate against the set provisions of law. It is, therefore, desirable that before passing any order, the Magistrate shall read the relevant provisions of law. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned summoning order deserves to be quashed. The impugned summoning order 28.10.2022 is hereby quashed. Learned Magistrate is, hereby, directed to pass a fresh summoning order within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 10. The Senior Registrar of this Court is, hereby, directed to communicate this order to Ms. Shikha Singh, Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, District-Unnao through District Judge, Unnao. It is hereby directed to Ms. Shikha Singh, Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, District-Unnao to be careful in future while passing the summoning order in which the liberty of a person is involved. 11. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed.