Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119812 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22674 of 2024 Applicant :- Zarif Khan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra,Umesh 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 the cognizance as well as summoning order dated 24.08.2020 along with entire proceedings of Case No.16888 of 2023 (State Vs. Afzal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.247 of 2020, under Section 147, 148, 149, 224, 323, 325, 333, 353, 307, 188, 269, 270, 271, 427, 332, 504 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 3 of Epidemic Act, 1897, Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Shamli. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that in pursuance of incident dated 27.05.2020, the present FIR was lodged in pursuance of said sections against several named persons including the applicant no.4 but applicant nos.1 to 3 were not named in the said FIR. After lodging of the FIR, inquiry was initiated and during inquiry, statements of police personnel were recorded and after conclusion of the inquiry, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet on dated 14.08.2020 against 15 persons including the applicants whereupon learned court concerned took cognizance of offence vide order dated 24.08.2020 and summoned the applicants for facing trial which impugned the present application. 4. Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case since there was no independent witness of the alleged incident and only the police personals were witnesses. Learned counsel for applicants has further submitted that without conducting identification parade, it was impossible to identify the applicants in the crowd of hundreds at the spot but the concerned Investigating Officer did not do so and moreso, applicants were arrested from their houses. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that without conducting fair investigation and only relying upon the statements of police personals, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicants 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. 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 applicants. 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 applicants from availing the remedies which are available to them as per law. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad