Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79844 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29068 of 2024 Applicant :- Kaptan Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Prasad 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 11.07.2023 and cognizance order dated 05.02.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.410 of 2024 (State Vs. Kaptan Tiwari), arising out of Case Crime No.28 of 2023, under Section 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/FTC, Chitrakoot. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 against applicant bearing Case Crime No.28 of 2023 on dated 15.02.2023 alleging that on 14.02.2023 at about 08.30 pm, applicant/accused came at the house of informant with pistol and abused him and his family members and when informant forbidden to abuse, applicant fired with pistol upon informant but he escaped thereafter applicant left threatening to kill him. After lodging of the FIR, inquiry was initiated and during inquiry, statement of informant under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. During investigation, applicant was arrested by concerned police with pistol and catridges and after conduction of the inquiry, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet on dated 11.07.2023 against applicant for offence under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act whereupon learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence vide order dated 05.02.2024 and summoned the applicant for facing trial which impugned the present application. 4. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to political rivalry and moreso, neither the informant was medically examined nor any injury was sustained by him. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that without conducting fair investigation and only relying upon the statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 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. 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 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. 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 applicant from availing the remedies which are available to him as per law. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad