Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65715 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25935 of 2024 Applicant :- Dharmendra Gupta @ Bechu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Mishra 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 17.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 21.05.2024 passed in Case No.14114 of 2024 (State Vs. Sonu @ Javed), arising out of Case Crime No.84 of 2024, under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh as well as entire criminal proceedings of the said case, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Azamgarh. 3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case since he is involved in politics and also he had lodged several FIRs against several persons. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that neither he was arrested from the spot nor anything was recovered from his possession. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that there was no independent witness of the alleged recovery and only police personnel were witness and as such, provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. along with Section 100 Cr.P.C. have been violated. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that without conducting fair investigation and only relying upon the statements of police personnel, 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. 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 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. It has also been apprised by learned AGA that applicant is having criminal history of one other case pertains to the same section as implicated in the present case. 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 as well as statements recorded during investigation along with recovery memo and moreso, applicant is having criminal history of one more case pertains to same section as involved in the present 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 482 Cr.P.C. 8. On aforesaid reason, the present application is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad