Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125997 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26850 of 2025 Applicant :- Javed Siddiqui Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar 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 charge sheet dated 04.11.2023 in Case no. 116 of 2024 (State vs. Deepak Agrawal and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 194 of 2023 under sections 63, 65 Copyright Act against the applicant at Police Station- Shalimar Garden, District Ghaziabad and learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) F.T.C./ Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad has taken cognizance and summon against the applicant dated 30.01.2024 pending in court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) F.T.C./Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to malafide intention and ulterior motive of opposite party no. 2. No such duplicate items have been recovered from applicant's shop and without FSL investigation, how can informant say that items recovered from applicant's shop are duplicate one and as such impugned cognizance order and charge sheet are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application. 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. From perusal of the material on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The arguments 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. 7. 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. 8. In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad