Allahabad High Court

RAKESH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The High Court held that the magistrate need only record a prima facie opinion and the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS cannot be exercised to quash the charge sheet as there was no sufficient ground for proceeding.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge sheet and the magistrate's cognizance order in a criminal case alleging offences under Sections 115(2), 352 and 127(2) of the IPC. They argued that they were falsely implicated, the injury report was trivial, and the witness statements were contradictory, thus no essential ingredients of the offences were present. The State opposed the prayer. The Court held that at the stage of summoning a magistrate is required only to form a prima facie opinion, not to conduct a mini‑trial, and that the factual allegations of false implication must be decided by the trial court. Citing the Supreme Court decisions in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar and Nupur Talwar v. CBI, the Court reiterated that the test is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not for conviction. Consequently, the Court found no sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of Section 528 BNSS and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the material before the magistrate at the stage of issuing a summons is sufficient to quash the charge sheet under Section 528 BNSS.
Whether the allegations of false implication and lack of essential ingredients of the offences can be decided at the pre‑trial stage.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 127(2), 352

Subjects

Section 528 application
quash charge sheet
prima facie opinion
magistrate jurisdiction
inherent powers
false implication
Indian Penal Code
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12155 of 2026

Rakesh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anamika Singh, Jitendra Pal Singh,
Pradeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Jitendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned
AGA for State.

2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge sheet
dated 16.1.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 26.5.2025
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, Pilibhit and
entire proceeding of Case no. 6900 of 2025 (State vs. Rakesh and another)
arising out of Case Crime no. 376 of 2024 under sections 115(2), 352,
127(2) BNS, PS- Gajraula, District Pilibhit.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that applicants have been
falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention and ulterior
motive of opposite party no. 2. As per injury report, injury sustained by the
informant is simple in nature and not fresh. Statements recorded by the
witnesses are contradictory. As per evidence on record, no essential
ingredients of the sections 115(2), 352, 127(2) BNS are present 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
NA528 No. 12155 of 2026
2

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
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 applicants. The assertions of false
implication raised by the applicants 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.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
April 20, 2026
Shaswat

Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…