Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109192 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21608 of 2025 Applicant :- Amresh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Dixit 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 27.11.2021 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 02.12.2021 along with entire proceedings of Case No.12718 of 2021 (State Vs. Amresh Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.354 of 2021, under Section 419, 420, 500, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 43/33/66D of I.T. Act, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 against unknown persons bearing Case Crime No.354 of 2021, under Section 419, 420, 500, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 43/33/66D of I.T. Act. After lodging of the FIR, inquiry was initiated and during inquiry, applicant was arrested along other co-accused and after conduction of the inquiry, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet on dated 27.11.2021 against applicant for offence under Section 419, 420, 500, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 43/33/66D of I.T. Act whereupon learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence vide order dated 02.12.2021 and summoned the applicant for facing trial which impugned the present application. 4. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case since he was not named in the FIR and he was implicated only on the basis that he was friend of co-accused, namely, Shivam. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that applicant was only running computer classes with co-accused in the name of Osho Institute which was affiliated by Monad University and he was unaware about the fact that the said university was a forged one. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that he never issued any certificate to anyone and the same was issued by the said university and applicant was having no idea that the said university was forged. 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 of offence over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed. It has also been apprised by learned counsel for applicant that another FIR has also been lodged against the Monad University. 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 528 BNSS. 9. In view thereof, the present applicant stands disposed of. 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 :- 9.7.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad