Allahabad High Court
MOHD RAHILversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that the material on record was sufficient to proceed and the applicant's allegations of false implication are matters for trial, therefore the Section 528 application was dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Mohd Rahil, filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a case arising from alleged offences under several IPC sections. He alleged false implication, claiming the investigation was improper and that the statements of a key witness were not recorded. The State opposed the application. The Court held that at the stage of issuing a summons, the magistrate need only record a prima facie opinion and not conduct a mini‑trial, and that the applicant's contentions are factual issues for the trial court. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court noted that Section 528 powers are to be exercised sparingly and that no sufficient ground existed to invoke them. Consequently, the application was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 528 CrPC can be entertained to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order at the stage of summoning
- Whether the material on record shows a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused
- Whether the inherent powers under Section 528 CrPC may be invoked in the present facts
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 106, 125, 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash proceedings
- prima facie
- magistrate jurisdiction
- trial court
- false implication
- inherent powers
- judicial discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14304 of 2026
Mohd Rahil
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Mohd. Iqbal Hasan
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 17.4.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 26.9.2025
and entire proceeding of Case no. 10814 of 25/9 arising out of Case Crime
no. 321 of 2024 under sections 106, 125, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS,
PS- Pakbara, District Moradabad.
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. The specific case of the applicant is that he is
merely husband of the owner of the building in which alleged Maqdomi
Hospital, Sambhal has been run by Dr. Farha. Even though the statement of
Dr. Farha has not been properly recorded and the relevant documents have
not been verified during the investigation. Therefore, the investigation
conducted by the Investigating Officer appears to be completely improper
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
NA528 No. 14304 of 2026
2
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 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.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…