HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33032 of 2024 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State- respondent. 2. The present application has been preferred challenging chargesheet dated 20.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.08.2024 along with entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No.179 of 2024 (State Vs. Santosh Kumar Nishad and another), arising out of Case Crime No.172 of 2023, under Section 25/9 Arms Act and Sections 354, 307, 338 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Badlapur, District Jaunpur, pending before learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jaunpur. 3. Learned counsel for applicants has argued that initially in respect of incident dated 18.06.2023, the present FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 against unknown person in pursuance of Section 9 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act and during investigation of the same, Section 354, 307 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act were added by the concerned Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that in the present matter, the allegation was of celebratory firing and as such, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out since the same was done intentionally. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that during investigation, statement of injured Rubi Nishad was recorded wherein it was stated by her that the fire was made behind curtain then in which circumstance, it has been assumed that the applicants have fired. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants 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 took cognizance of offence over the said Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Santosh Kumar Nishad Alias Santosh Bind And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed. 4. It has been apprised by learned counsel for applicants that in respect of same incident, an FIR was also lodged by injured Rubi Nishad through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against applicants which was registered as Case Crime No.346 of 2023, under Section 354, 307 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. 5. 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. 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. 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 A482 No. 33032 of 2024 2 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. 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 the applicants from availing the remedies which are available to them as per law. October 6, 2025 Vivek Kr. A482 No. 33032 of 2024 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad