Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140294 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2330 of 2025 Applicant :- Pushpendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Yadav,Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present application has been preferred challenging chargesheet dated 09.10.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 21.10.2021 along with order or charge framing dated 08.11.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.1680 of 2024 (State Vs. Sahdev and others), arising out of Case Crime No.237 of 2021, under Section 272, 273, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 60(A), 72 of U.P. Excise Act, P.S. Achhnera, District Agra, pending before learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.21, Agra. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has argued that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case since he was neither named in the FIR nor he was arrested from spot. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by applicant since nothing has been recovered from his possession and moreso, except the confessional statement made by co-accused from which the name of applicant has surfaced, there is hardly any evidence is available on record against him and as such, applicant no offence is made out. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicant but without considering the said facts and 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 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 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. 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. The arguments so raised by learned counsel for applicant, are amenable before learned court concerned since chargesheet has been preferred by the concerned Investigating Officer after conduction of detailed inquiry which reveals implication of applicant in the present case. The implication of applicant in the present case, is justified or not, shall be tested by learned court concerned in the trial since the arguments of learned counsel for applicant, relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad