RAMESH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38386 of 2026

Ramesh And Another
                                                .....Applicant(s)
                             Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Anil     Kumar     Verma,
                                Kamalesh Kumar Nishad,
                                Ravindra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
           HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for
State.

2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash
charge     sheet     dated     10.5.2026     as    well     as
cognizance/summoning order dated 15.5.2026 passed in Case
no. 84552 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime no. 55 of 2026
under sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(3), 352 BNS, PS- Khorabar,
District Gorakhpur.

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. From perusal of documentary evidences, no offence
punishable in pursuance of aforesaid sections is made out
against the applicants. Injured victim has not assigned any
specific role against the applicants and as such impugned
cognizance order and charge sheet are liable to be quashed and
set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite parties vehemently
opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and
rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for applicants
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.
                                                   NA528 No. 38386 of 2026
                           2

It is also 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 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. Recently, in judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others
passed in Criminal Appeal no. 4752 of 2025 (arising out of
S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 1531 of 2025, it has been held that on the
aspect of the powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the
Cr.PC, it is settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not
required to conduct a mini trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.PC with respect to quashing is somewhat
limited as the Court has to only consider whether any sufficient
material is available to proceed against the accused or not. If
sufficient material is available, the power under Section 482
should not be exercised.

7. From perusal of the material on record, at this stage, it
cannot be said that no offence is made out against the
applicants. 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. In
proceeding u/s 528 BNSS, this Court is not inclined to hold
mini-trial.
                                                                                        NA528 No. 38386 of 2026
                                                                 3

                                        8. 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.

                                        9. In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528
                                        BNSS is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
                                        However, applicants are at liberty to avail whatever remedy
                                        available at law.

                                        September 18, 2026
                                        Shaswat

                                                                               (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




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