SHOBHNATH YADAV AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46212 of 2025

Shobhnath Yadav And 3 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Murli Dhar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Avadh Pratap Singh Shishodia, G.A.,
                                Vikram Singh

Court No. - 75
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Murli Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for applicants and Sri
Avadh Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party
no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The present application has been preferred challenging chargesheet dated
25.08.2024 and cognizance order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Case No.282
of 2025 (State Vs. Shobh Nath and others), arising out of Case Crime
No.246 of 2024, under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Machhlishahar,
District Jaunpur, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-2nd, Jaunpur.

3. Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely
implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass them
since no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by them. It has also
been argued by learned counsel for applicants that the alleged incident is
said to have taken place on 14.06.2020 but the NCR was lodged on
17.08.2020 i.e. after lapse of more than two months and no explanation for
delay has been given. Learned counsel for applicants has further submitted
the injured was went to hospital with plastered hand after two months of the
alleged incident and without cutting the plaster, injured was medically
examined wherein fracture in right forearm was found. Learned counsel for
applicants also contended that the alleged injury was sustained by the injured
in a bike accident. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that
there is hardly any evidence against applicants to corroborate them with the
alleged incident. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants
that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating
Officer submitted chargesheet against applicants whereupon without
                                                         NA528 No. 46212 of 2025
                                 2

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. Learned counsel for applicants placed reliance upon the judgments passed
by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur
@ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others [2024 AIR (SC) 3008] and
Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2024 (2) SCC 176] and submitted that
in both the cases, criminal proceedings have been quashed on the ground of
delay in lodging the FIR which is also happened in the present case.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 as
well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the
application 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 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.

6. 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 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.

7. 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
                                                                                            NA528 No. 46212 of 2025
                                                                    3

                                    U.P. and another).

                                    8. From perusal of the material available on record in shape of narrations
                                    made in the FIR, chargesheet, statement recorded during investigation as
                                    well as injury report and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it
                                    cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. 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.

                                    9. In sofar as the cases i.e. Shivendra Pratap Singh (supra) and Sekaran
                                    (supra) passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court whereupon learned counsel for
                                    applicants placed reliance, are concerned, having greatest regards to the
                                    same, both are not applicable in the instant matter at this stage, since
                                    judgment in Shivendra Pratap Singh (supra) was passed at the stage of
                                    challenging of FIR and judgment of Sekaran (supra) was passed in an
                                    criminal appeal which was preferred after conviction.

                                    10. On the aforesaid reasons, the present application is devoid of merit and,
                                    hence, the same is dismissed.

                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Vivek Kr.
                                                                                         (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad