PRADUMNversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15946 of 2026

Pradumn
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                      :   Shri Niwash Yadav
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
cognizance/summoning order dated 18.11.2025 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Mau and entire proceeding of Case no. 1811 of 2025
arising out of in Case Crime no. 540 of 2024 under sections 115(2), 352,
351(2), 110 BNS, PS- Ghosi, District Mau.

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. As per medical report, for injury no. 1 CT
scan has been advised and injury nos. 2 and 3 are only complaint of pain.
Learned Magistrate concerned while taking cognizance of offence have not
passed any reasoned order 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
                                                                                              NA528 No. 15946 of 2026
                                                                      2


                                    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. However, applicant is at
                                    liberty to avail all other remedy available at law.


                                                                                           (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Shaswat




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