HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23495 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA appearing for the State. 2. This present application has been filed for seeking quashing of order dated 23.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Agra in Case No.878 of 2022 (State Vs. Satish and others), arising out of Case Crime No.255 of 2022, under Section 323, 354, 506 IPC, P.S. Fatehabad, District Agra. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case since there was some dispute regarding sale deed which was executed by husband and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 in favour of applicant. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that applicant has not assaulted the opposite party no.2 and moreso there is hardly any specific allegation put forward by opposite party no.2 at the time of recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. against him. Learned counsel for applicant also submitted that but without considering the said facts, discharge application preferred at the behest of applicant, has been rejected illegally against the weight of evidence by learned court concerned vide impugned order dated 23.04.2025 and as such, the same may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the instant application and supported the order impugned. Learned AGA also submitted that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Tripuresh Tiwari .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that at the stage of consideration of discharge, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial. 5. The ambit and scope of exercise of powers while passing an order of discharge, was subject matter of consideration in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal And Another [(1979) 3 SCC 4], and it was held that the Court while exercising such powers is not to act as a trial judge but should weigh evidence and form opinion only on the limited question of whether a prima facie case is made out. 6. From perusal of the material available on record as well as order impugned, it is evident that the court concerned after considering each and every aspect of the matter and allegations made in the FIR and the statements recorded during course of investigation, has rightly rejected the application for discharge by holding that prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, it cannot be said that learned court concerned has acted without application of mind, the reasoning given by learned court concerned, is just and proper. 7. In view thereof, the application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. October 15, 2025 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 23495 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad