Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129426 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1159 of 2025 Applicant :- X Minor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh 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 cognizance as well as summoning order dated 23.08.2023 along with entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.788 of 2023 (State Vs. Chandan Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.13 of 2023, under Section 120-B IPC and Section 67-B of I.T. Act, Police Station Rampur Majha, District Ghazipur, pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Ghazipur. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR bearing Case Crime No.13 of 2023 was lodged by opposite party no.2/victim against one Chandan Yadav under Sections 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and Section 66-E, 67 of I.T. Act. After lodging of the FIR, inquiry was initiated and during inquiry, statements of victim and her brother, namely, Ajay were recorded under Section 161 as well as victim was medically examined. After completion of the inquiry, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet only against Chandan Yadav on dated 17.06.2023 for offence under Section under Sections 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and Section 66-E, 67 of I.T. Act but at time of taking cognizance of offence, learned court concerned also summoned applicant for commission of offence under Section 120-B IPC and Section 67-B of I.T. Act which impugned the present application. 4. Learned counsel for applicant has argued that neither applicant was named in the FIR nor chargesheet and his name was surfaced from the statement of brother of victim, namely, Ajay Yadav recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who stated that applicant was a member of whats-app group wherein obscene photos and videos of victim gone viral and on that basis, learned concerned court summoned the applicant for commission of offence under Section 120-B IPC and Section 67-B of I.T. Act. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that applicant was not admin of the said whats-app group. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that at no point of time, victim has taken the name of applicant and as such, applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only to harass him. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that without considering the said facts and without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence over the 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 perusal of the material available on record in shape of narrations made in the FIR as well as statements recorded during investigation 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 482 Cr.P.C. 9. On aforesaid reason, the present application is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed. 10. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the applicant from availing the remedies which are available to him as per law. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad