Allahabad High Court

HILLO @ SALMA BEGUM AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 9 February 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The application under Section 528 CrPC is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a case alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. They alleged that the FIR and injury report were fabricated by the second opposite party with mala‑fide intent, and that no prima facie case existed against them. The court examined the scope of a magistrate’s power at the summoning stage, noting that only a prima facie assessment is required, not a mini‑trial, as affirmed in S.W. Palanitkar and Nupur Talwar. On reviewing the material, the court found that it could not conclude that no offence was made out and that the factual allegations of false implication must be decided by the trial court. Consequently, the court held that the inherent power under Section 528 is to be exercised sparingly and found no sufficient ground to invoke it, dismissing the application.

Issues considered

Whether the charge sheet and cognizance order can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
Whether the magistrate’s summoning order requires a determination of prima facie existence of an offence.
Whether the alleged false implication and fabricated injury report justify the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
quash of charge sheet
prima facie test
inherent powers of court
false implication
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45310 of 2025

Hillo @ Salma Begum And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 75
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 9.4.2022 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 16.11.2023
passed in Case no. 6273 of 2022 (State vs. Chillo and others) arising out of
Case Crime no. 0050 of 2022 under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Kotwali
Nagar, District Aligarh.

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. Opposite party no. 2 has lodged the false FIR
against the applicants and also got prepared the manipulated injury report.
Prima facie, no offence under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC 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
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. 45310 of 2025
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 including the injury report, 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.

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.)
February 10, 2026
Shaswat

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…