SUNDARAM PANDEY AND 19 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15942 of 2026

Sundaram Pandey And 19 Others
                                                                .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Abhinav Kumar Pandey
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 30.9.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 9.11.2023
and entire proceeding of Case no. 1875 of 2023 (State vs. Sundaram Pandey
and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 235 of 2022 under sections 143,
145, 147, 149, 153, 341, 186, 353, 504 IPC, PS- Lalganj, District Mirzapur.

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. All the applicants were familiar with the
deceased persons and they all got shocked after the said incident and after
hearing the news of death of two persons in the said incident and they were
not in a stable state of mind as any person who will see the body parts of his
close one lying over the road would not be able to restrain himself from the
grief which itself is a natural phenomena and due to this reason only all the
applicants were named in the FIR. There is nothing on record to show that
the applicants have misbehaved with the police authorities as only the
applicants were questioning the work ethics of concerned police authority.
No offence is made out against the applicants 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
                                                                                             NA528 No. 15942 of 2026
                                                                      2


                                    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 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. Arguments so raised by
                                    learned counsel for applicants for seeking defence of the charges levelled
                                    against them are subject matter of trial and same cannot be adjudicated by
                                    way of conducting mini trial in proceeding under Section 528 BNSS which
                                    has been denied by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. 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.

                                    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 5, 2026
                                    Shaswat




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