Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65723 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25938 of 2024 Applicant :- Shashikant Dubey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Debee Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 2.7.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 13.8.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.3674 of 2021 (State v. Jay Prakash Dubey and others), arising out of Case Crime No.93 of 2021, under sections 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC (against applicant no.1) and sections 323, 504, 506, 34, 352 IPC and 30 of Arms Act (against applicant no.2), Police Station- Gopiganj, District Bhadohi, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur Bhadohi. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that opposite party no.2 lodged FIR bearing Case Crime No.93 of 2021 alleging that when he was returning from his friend's house, namely, Vinod Shukla, by his bike, suddenly accused persons/applicants came and started abusing him, beaten him by hand and iron rod as well as lathi and also threatened to kill him. It has also been alleged by opposite party no.2 that one accused namely, Jai Prakash fired two rounds upon the informant but he escaped. After lodging of the FIR, inquiry was initiated which culminated into submission of chargesheet on dated 02.07.2021 against applicants whereupon learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence and summoned the applicant vide order dated 13.08.2021 which impugned the present application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier an FIR bearing Case Crime No.92 of 2021 was lodged on dated 05.04.2021 by applicant no.1 against Vinod Shukla and Manoj Kumar who are friends of opposite party no.2 due to which, the present FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 on 07.04.2021 just after two days implicating the applicants on the basis of false and concocted story due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel for applicants further argued that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicants whereupon without considering the said facts and without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet and summoned the applicants 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 statement 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. Lastly, learned counsel for applicants submitted that liberty may be granted to applicants to surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail to which learned AGA has no objection. 11. In view of the innocuous prayer as made, if in case, applicants surrender before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825). 12. However, it is made clear that till three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants herein in pursuance of aforesaid case. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad