SUKHVEER SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

      APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15768 of 2026



Sukhveer Singh And 2 Others
                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                              Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                        .....Opposite
                                                              Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Mahenam Haroon, Pratham
                                Gaur, Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 77

           HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the
State-respondent.

2. The present application has been preferred challenging entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.732 of 2024 (State Vs.
Sukhveer Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.296 of
2023, under Section 323, 324, 325, 307, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.
Gunnour, District Sambhal, pending before learned District and
Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi.

3. Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have
been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2
only to harass them since no offence as alleged, has ever been
committed by them. It has also been argued by learned counsel
for applicants that plot of applicant no.1 is adjacent to the plot of
opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 wants to grab the
same and due to the same dispute, a civil suit preferred at the
behest of opposite party no.2 against applicant no.1, is already
pending wherein no interim order has been granted. Learned
counsel for applicant has further submitted that only to make
pressure upon the applicants, the present criminal proceedings
have been initiated giving criminal colour to a civil dispute.
Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that there is
hardly any evidence against applicants to corroborate them with
                                                   NA528 No. 15768 of 2026
                           2

the alleged incident. It has also been argued by learned counsel
for applicants that without conducting fair investigation, the
concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against
applicants whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned
court concerned took cognizance of offence over the said
chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same
may be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as
made in the application by way of submitting that the
contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicants,
would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve
appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that at the time of taking
cognizance, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court
concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial.

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 taking cognizance/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". At the stage of taking cognizance, a court's
primary focus is to determine if a prima facie case exists,
meaning whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an
offense has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of
the case or the evidence.

6. The aforementioned legal position has also been considered in
a recent decision of this Court in the judgment dated 6.5.2024
                                                                                            NA528 No. 15768 of 2026
                                                                    3

                                        passed in Matters under Article 227 no. 3254 of 2024 (Kailash
                                        and another vs. State of U.P. and another).

                                        7. From perusal of the material available on record in shape of
                                        narrations made in the FIR, chargesheet, statement recorded
                                        during investigation as well as injury report and looking into the
                                        facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is
                                        made out against applicants. All the submission made at the bar,
                                        relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be
                                        adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred
                                        under Section 528 BNSS.

                                        8. On the aforesaid reasons, the present application is devoid of
                                        merit and, hence, the same is dismissed.

                                        9. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the
                                        applicant from availing the remedies which are available to them
                                        as per law.

                                        April 20, 2026
                                        Vivek Kr.
                                                                                   (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad