HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29367 of 2025 Court No. - 77 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 21.03.2025 and summoning order dated 08.07.2025 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2754 of 2025 (State Vs. Ram Keal Gupta and another), arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2024, under Section 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 339 BNS, P.S. Mohana, District Siddharth Nagar, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has argued that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused and moreso, no role has been assigned to applicant which is also apparent from narration of the FIR. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicant and the recovery which has been shown by police, is connected to other co-accused. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted although applicant is also doing business of organic fertilizers but he has never been involved in making fake fertilizers. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Digvijay, Preete Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shri Ram Jaiswal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. From perusal of the material available on record in shape of narrations made in the FIR, chargesheet 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. Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is refused. 9. Lastly, learned counsel for applicant submitted that liberty may be granted to applicant to surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail to which learned AGA has no objection. NA528 No. 29367 of 2025 2 10. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is finally disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that in case, the applicant surrenders before the court concerned within a period of four weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825). 11. However, it is made clear that till four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant herein in pursuance of aforesaid case. October 17, 2025 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 29367 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad