HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29120 of 2025 Court No. - 77 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 27.02.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 21.03.2025 as well as NBW order dated 12.06.2025 along with entire proceedings of the case arising out of Case Crime No.36 of 2025, under Section 74, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Suriyawan, District Bhadohi, pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge/POCSO Act, Gyanpur Bhadohi. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has argued that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass him since no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by applicants. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that there is hardly any evidence which would go to show that offence under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act has been committed by applicant. 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 took cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed. 4. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Singh, Shiva Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gyan Chandra Yadav Parmesh Upadhyay .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 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 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. 6. 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). 7. From perusal of the material available on record in shape of narrations made in the FIR, chargesheet, statement of victim under Section 180 and 183 BNSS 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. 8. On aforesaid reason, the present application is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed. 9. 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. September 24, 2025 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 29120 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad