SHANKY ANANDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16071 of 2026

Shanky Anand
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)        : Raj Kumar, Rajrshi Gupta, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   : G.A.

Court No. - 77
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA
for the State.

2. The instant application has been preferred with a prayer to quash charge-
sheet dated 12.11.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2026
along with entire proceedings of Case No.30 of 2026 (State Vs. Shanky
Anand) arising out of Case Crime No.470 of 2025, under Sections 108,
351(2) BNS, P.S. Roja, District- Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate- Ist, Shahjahanpur.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely
implicated in this case with ulterior motive, since no offence as alleged has
ever been committed by him. It is next submitted that no offence under
section 108 BNS has been made out against the applicant, since the essential
ingredients of abetment and instigation as defined under section 45 BNS is
completely missing in the entire prosecution story. Learned counsel for
applicant further submitted that there is hardly any evidence against
applicant to corroborate him with the alleged incident. It has also been
argued by learned counsel for applicant that without conducting fair
investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet
against applicant 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
                                                         NA528 No. 16071 of 2026
                                 2


raised on behalf of applicant, 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 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 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 and
looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no
offence is made out against applicant. 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 prayer sought through instant application is
hereby refused. The applicant will be at liberty to avail all the other legal
                                                                                            NA528 No. 16071 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    remedies which are available to him as per law, which includes discharge
                                    also.

                                    9. With the aforesaid direction, the instant application stands disposed of.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Saif
                                                                                         (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad