HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32467 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Harshit Pathak, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Lorik Yadav holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to "quash the charge- sheet dated 5.12.2024 submitted against the applicants under sections 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 109, 117(2), 351(2) and 352 of BNS in Case Crime no. 286 of 2024, PS- Sarsawa, District Saharanpur and order dated 25.7.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur by which he has held that offence against the applicants is made out under sections 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 109, 117(2), 351(2) and 352 BNS in Case Crime no. 286 of 2024. " 3. Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the impugned framing of charge order dated 25.7.2025 has been passed without considering the entirety of the matter. There is no material sufficient against the applicants for framing of the charges, which aspect has not been considered by the Court below. The impugned order is illegal, unjust and contrary to the provision as prescribed in the statute. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that perusal of FIR will show that no mens rea was present in the prosecution story. No injury sustained by the injured as well as deceased were on vital part of the body. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from the possession of applicants. Due to some civil litigation persisting between the parties, applicants have been falsely roped in the present case. The charge sheet as well as Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Pathak, Harshit Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, G.A. Shoaib And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) impugned order which has been passed by the Court below is without considering the aforesaid aspects. 5. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the Court below while passing impugned order has considered the case and found sufficient material available on record to frame charge. There is no ground for interference by this Court in the impugned order as well as charge sheet. The present application being devoid of merit be dismissed as such. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is required to consider the "record of the case" and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the section exists, then the court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. 7. In this case, from perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the Court below after perusing the record found that sufficient material is available to frame charges against the applicants, therefore, the impugned charge framing order dated 25.7.2025 has been passed. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicant are factual issues that requires proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. In proceeding u/s 528 BNSS, this Court is not inclined to hold mini-trial. I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere in the impugned order as well as charge sheet. NA528 No. 32467 of 2025 2 8. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. October 10, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 32467 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad