Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52210 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11256 of 2025 Applicant :- Lal Chandra Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Bahadur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 the chargesheet dated 08.01.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 30.10.2023 passed in S.S.T. No.243 of 2023 (State Vs. Lal Chandra Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.352 of 2022, under Section 323, 504, 506, 354-B IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Sarai Khwaza, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act-I, Jaunpur. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No.352 of 2022 through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against applicant and other accused under Sections 323, 354-B, 504, 506 IPC alleging that on 12.08.2022, applicant along with other co-accused beaten the informant and her daughters by abusing them and torn their clothes and also threatened them. After registration of the FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer started inquiry in shape of recording statements of informant and two daughters under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of the inquiry, submitted chargesheet under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354-B IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act whereupon, learned court concerned has taken cognizance of offences vide impugned order dated 30.10.2023. Statements of victims i.e. daughter of informant have also been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein they have supported the averments narrated in the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present by opposite party no.2 only to harass him. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that the victims have refused to examine medically and moreso, the independent eye witnesses whose statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., have not supported the prosecution. 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 taken cognizance over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed. 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 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. 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. 7. 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). 8. From the perusal of the material available on record in shape of statements of victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. through which they have fully supported the narrations made in the FIR 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. 9. On aforesaid reason, the present application is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad