Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:94155 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18526 of 2025 Applicant :- Jishan Alias Mo. Jishan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Charan Singh,Dilnawaz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial no. 129/2024 (State vs. Jakir @ Saif and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 319 of 2023 under Section 3(1) of U.P.Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS- Ahraula, District Azamgarh pending before learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge, Gangster Act, Court no. 6, Azamgarh as well as charge sheet dated 04.10.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 05.10.2024 passed on it. 3. While assailing the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial no. 129 of 2024, learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in present case. The incident whatsoever has been alleged, never took place and present proceeding is in shape of harassment to applicant. Learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind and passed cognizance order illegally which is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra,learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application and submitted that present proceeding initiated under Gangster Act against applicant is fully justified. 5. 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 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". 6. None of the grounds raised through the instant application are convincing enough so as to attract interference of this Court. 7. From perusal of the material on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. 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. 8. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 9. In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad