Allahabad High Court
MADHOO YADAV @ SHRADDHAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The application under Section 528 CrPC is devoid of merit and must be dismissed as there is insufficient ground to quash the proceedings.
Summary
The applicant, Madhoo Yadav, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a case alleging extortion, criminal conspiracy and intimidation under IPC sections 386, 120B and 506. The applicant alleged false implication and lack of any overt act, contending that the allegations were vague and unsustainable. The court examined the scope of a magistrate’s power at the summoning stage, noting that only a prima facie view is required and not a mini‑trial, citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in S.W. Palanitkar and Nupur Talwar. It held that the factual disputes raised by the applicant must be decided by the trial court and that the inherent power under Section 528 is to be exercised sparingly. Consequently, the court found no sufficient ground to invoke Section 528 and dismissed the application, while allowing the applicant to pursue other remedies.
Issues considered
- Whether the charge sheet and cognizance order can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the ground of alleged false implication.
- Whether the magistrate’s prima facie opinion at the stage of summoning suffices to sustain the proceedings.
- Whether the inherent powers under Section 528 CrPC may be exercised in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 386, 506
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash charge sheet
- prima facie
- false implication
- extortion
- criminal intimidation
- inherent powers
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11344 of 2026
Madhoo Yadav @ Shraddha
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Araf Khan, Sonakshi Arora
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Prasad, G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge sheet
dated 11.6.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 9.9.2025
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra and entire proceeding of
Case no. 18249 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 299 of 2024 under
sections 386, 120B, 506 IPC, PS- Sikandra, District Agra.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention and ulterior
motive of opposite party no. 2. Applicant is not assigned any specific overt
act constituting extortion or criminal intimidation, rendering the allegations
against her vague and unsustainable. No ingredients of Section 386 IPC are
made out. None of the prosecution witnesses have alleged any act of
physical threat by the applicant and as such impugned cognizance order and
charge sheet are liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through
instant application.
5. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the
parties and perusing the records, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage
of summoning, the Magistrate is only required to record a prima facie
opinion, based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a mini
trial or to examine the defence of the accused. In judgment rendered by
NA528 No. 11344 of 2026
2
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of
Bihar and Another; (2002) 1 SCC 241 it was held that the test which was
required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient ground for
proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient ground for conviction". In
the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another; (2012) 11 SCC 465, it was reiterated that the limited purpose of
consideration of material at the stage of issuing process being tentative as
distinguished from the actual evidence produced during trial, the test to be
applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate
was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to
prove and establish the guilt".
6. From perusal of the material on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that
no offence is made out against the applicant. The assertions of false
implication raised by the applicant are factual issues that requires proper
adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively
determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. In proceeding u/s 528
BNSS, this Court is not inclined to hold mini-trial.
7. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to
be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the
process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no
sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS.
8. In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528 BNSS is
devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, applicant is at
liberty to avail all other remedy available at law.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…