Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129786 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41748 of 2024 Applicant :- Gulzar And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Maohammd Nadeem 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 for quashing the charge sheet dated 06.05.2023 and cognizance / summoning order dated 27.06.2023 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.3346 of 2023, State versus Gulzar and other, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 353 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal arising out of Case Crime No.528 of 2022, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi, Sambhal at Chandausi. 3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicants have falsely been implicated in the present by the police only to harass them and show the good work. The informant of the present FIR is the Sub Inspector of the Police Station where the FIR has lodged. As per the FIR, the informer has given information to the police that Rizwan is sitting in the shop (who is accused in another case) which is situated in his house. On that information, the police had raided that place but during the raid the applicants have started pelting bricks and stones upon the police party. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that such type of incident has not been caused but due to political influence the present FIR has been lodged against the applicants. Applicant nos.6 and 7 are women. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicants but without considering the said facts and without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned taken cognizance 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 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. 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. From the perusal of the material available on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicant. 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. 8. On aforesaid reason, the present application is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed. 9. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude that applicants from availing the remedies which are available to them as per law. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 I.A.Siddiqui Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad