JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Alok Srivastava-II, the learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Charu Singh, the learned AGA for the State and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of charge sheet no 1 of 2023 dated 01.04.2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, submitted in furtherance of FIR No. 120/2023, the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 16, Barabanki, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 & 308 IPC and summoning the accused persons to face trial of the offence and at the same time issuing an order for further investigation and calling for an explanation from the Investigating Officer as to why recommendation be not made for initiating departmental inquiry and action against him for not conducting the investigation properly. 3. The opposite party no. 2 had lodged FIR No. 120/2023 on 28.03.2023 against the applicants, stating that the agricultural lands of the complainant and the accused persons are adjoining each others’ land. The accused persons had damaged Med (boundary) dividing the two fields in the morning of 28.03.2023 and when the opposite party no. 2 objected against it, the accused persons attacked him with sticks and a spade causing injury on his hand and head. 4. The medico legal examination report of the victim mentions an incised wound on his head, contusions on left hand and left knee and an abrasion on chest and abdomen. The incised wound was opined to have been causes by some sharp object/weapon and the other injuries were caused by some hard and blunt object and the injuries were fresh. 5. The opposite party no. 2 reiterated the FIR allegations while recording her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 6. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of two independent witnesses, both of whom stated that the accused persons had abused and assaulted the opposite party no. 2 and the accused persons had left threatening them after intervention of the witnesses. 7. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 01.04.2023 for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC only. 8. While assailing validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in x-ray examination of the victim, no abnormality has been detected and, therefore, the offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out. 9. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 01.04.2023 for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC only. 8. While assailing validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in x-ray examination of the victim, no abnormality has been detected and, therefore, the offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out. 9. Section 308 IPC provides as follows:- “308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.— Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Illustration: A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A has committed the offence defined in this section.” 10. A bare perusal of Section 308 IPC indicates that there is absolutely no necessity of causing of any injury for making out an offence under Section 308 IPC and even in absence of any hurt having been caused, an offence to commit culpable homicide is made out and in such a case, it will be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years. In case hurt is caused in the incident, the offence becomes punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, even if the hurt is not grievous, i.e. if the hurt is simple. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that in absence of any abnormality having been reported in the x-ray examination of the opposite party no. 2, offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out, is absolutely misconceived and the same is rejected. 11. The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that when the trial court has ordered further investigation, it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. 12. Section 190 Cr.P.C. provides as follows: - “190. 2, offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out, is absolutely misconceived and the same is rejected. 11. The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that when the trial court has ordered further investigation, it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. 12. Section 190 Cr.P.C. provides as follows: - “190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence— (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try. (Emphasis supplied) 13. A bare reading of Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. indicates that a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of any offence upon a police report of facts which constitute such offence. Police report has to be of facts which constitute the offence and it need not mention the offence which is made out. Even if the police report mentions some offence and it omits to mention some other offence, in case the Magistrate is satisfied from facts stated in the police report that some other offence is also made out, the Magistrate can take cognizance of that offence also. 14. In India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1989) 2 SCC 132 , a Bench consisting of three Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: - “11. … On receiving the police report the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) and issue process straightway to the accused. The Magistrate may exercise his powers in this behalf irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their report whether an offence has been made out or not. This is because the police report under Section 173(2) will contain the facts discovered or unearthed by the police as well as the conclusion drawn by the police therefrom. The Magistrate may exercise his powers in this behalf irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their report whether an offence has been made out or not. This is because the police report under Section 173(2) will contain the facts discovered or unearthed by the police as well as the conclusion drawn by the police therefrom. If the Magistrate is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police there is sufficient material for him to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the Magistrate may do so without reference to the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer because the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police officer as to whether an offence has been made out or not. Alternately the Magistrate, on receiving the police report, may without issuing process or dropping the proceeding proceed to act under Section 200 by taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint originally submitted to him and proceed to record the statement upon oath of the complainant and the witnesses present and thereafter decide whether the complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued. * * * 13….On receiving the police report the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) and issue process straightway to the accused. The Magistrate may exercise his powers in this behalf irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their report whether an offence has been made out or not. This is because the police report under Section 173(2) will contain the facts discovered or unearthed by the police as well as the conclusion drawn by the police therefrom. If the Magistrate is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police there is sufficient material for him to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the Magistrate may do so without reference to the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer because the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police officer as to whether an offence has been made out or not. Alternately the Magistrate, on receiving the police report, may without issuing process or dropping the proceeding proceed to act under Section 200 by taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint originally submitted to him and proceed to record the statement upon oath of the complainant and the witnesses present and thereafter decide whether the complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.” 15. In Nahar Singh versus State of U. P. and others, (2022) 5 SCC 295 , after discussing various precedents on the point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Magistrate has to apply his mind while taking cognizance of an offence and if it appears from the material placed before him and any person other than those arrayed as accused also needs to be summoned, the Magistrate can certainly summon him. On the same principle, in case the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient material for trial of the accused for any other offence, he has the power to summon the accused person(s) for trial of that offence also. In case the Magistrate is satisfied by a perusal of the complaint and the material filed with it, that the accused persons appear to have violated any direction, it can take cognizance of the offence under Section 31-A also. 16. Therefore, the law requires that a Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence upon a police report of the facts constituting an offence. Although the police report may not allege commission of any specific offence, in case the Magistrate is satisfied that the facts stated in the police report make out commission of any offence, the Magistrate can take cognizance of that offence. 17. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that from the material placed before the trial court it found that the material clearly established commission of offences under Section 323, 504, 506 & 308 IPC and, accordingly, the trial court has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences. However, the trial court found that the Investigating Officer has recorded in the case diary that the injury no. 1 was caused by some sharp edged object but he did not make any effort to ascertain as to what was the object used and he did not make any attempt to recover the same. However, the trial court found that the Investigating Officer has recorded in the case diary that the injury no. 1 was caused by some sharp edged object but he did not make any effort to ascertain as to what was the object used and he did not make any attempt to recover the same. The Investigating Officer formed an opinion merely being influenced by the fact that no fracture was caused in the incident. The trial Court found that the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet in respect of the offences which are less serious under influence of extraneous reasons. The trial court observed that it was necessary to make efforts for recovery of the sharp edged object used in the offence and has directed further investigation on this point only. 18. In these circumstances, the trial court has not committed any error in taking cognizance of the offence when from the material placed before the trial, a case for taking cognizance of offences was made out. 19. Therefore, there is no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the trial court. 20. The application lacks merit and the same is dismissed.