HARSH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38446 of 2026

Harsh And 2 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)           : Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey
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 24.2.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 8.4.2025
passed in Case no. 311 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 49 of 2025
under sections 333, 352, 115(2), 76, 351(2), 117(2) BNS, PS- Jahangirabad,
District Bulandshahar.

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. There is delay in lodging the FIR. Applicants are having no
criminal history to their credit 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. 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.
                                                         NA528 No. 38446 of 2026
                                  2


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.

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
                                                                                             NA528 No. 38446 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    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 all other remedy available at law.


                                                                                          (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Shaswat




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