AMAN VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14288 of 2026

Aman Verma
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :      Ankit Mishra, Vikas Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :      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 26.12.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated
24.2.2026 and entire proceeding of Case no. 10345 of 2026 (State vs.
Aman Verma) arising out of Case Crime no. 256 of 2025 under sections
109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4) BNS, PS- Barra, District Kanpur
Nagar.

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. There is delay of about one month
in lodging FIR. The injuries sustained by the injured are neither grievous
nor dangerous to life, hence the offence under Section 109 BNS is not
made out against the applicant. The prosecution has not assigned any
motive against the present applicant for commission of crime and in
absence of any strong motive applicant has no occasion to commit the
alleged crime 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 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
                                                                                            NA528 No. 14288 of 2026
                                                                    2

                                    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 7, 2026
                                    Shaswat




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