Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37672 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4624 of 2025 Applicant :- Gufran Ahmad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Nayab Raza,Upendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Sahbaz Khan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Syed Nayab Raza, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Angad Kumar Vishwakarma, the learned A.G.A. and Sri Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record. 2. Sri Siddiqui, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that keeping in view the previous conduct of the applicant, the opposite party no.2 is not willing for reference of the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to examined the merits of the case. 3. By means of the present application filed under Section 528 BNSS, the applicants has sought quashing of the Charge sheet No. 78/2024 order dated 26.04.2024 and summoning order dated 17.12.2024 along with the proceedings of Case No. 14/2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 386 of 2023, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act., P.S Purwa, District Unnao. 4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No.2 on 20.08.2023 against the applicants who are her husband, mother-in-law, and brother-in- law (elder brother of the husband), stating that she had got married to the applicant No.1 on 22.01.2022; that all the accused persons used to harass her for demanding dowry and they turned her out of her matrimonial home after snatching away all her valuables.The allegations were established during investigation and charge sheet has been submitted on 26.04.2024. The trial court has taken cognizance of the offence on 17.12.2024. 5. The learned counsel the applicants has submitted that on the date of the alleged incident, the applicant no.1 was present at Mumbai. Regarding the other accused persons, he has submitted that the allegations are general in nature. 6. A bare perusal of the FIR prima facie indicates commission of cognizable offence by the applicants. The defence of the accused persons cannot be considered by the Court at this stage while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging the validity of the charge sheet and the summoning order. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online SC 379 has held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It does not require the prosecution/investigating agency to prove the allegations. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not". 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant application is hereby dismissed. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the applicant in the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court in furtherance of the order dated 02.06.2025 be refunded to him upon a suitable application being filed. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench