Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69072 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32970 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohd Nazim Ali And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Anand Sagar Dubey, learned AGA-I appearing for the State. 2. Supplementary affidavit preferred today by learned counsel for applicants which is taken on record. 3. This present application has been filed for seeking quashing of summoning orders as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No.406 of 2020 (State Vs. Nazim and others), arising out of Case Crime No.148 of 2018, under Sections 3/7 E.C. Act, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Meerut. 4. Learned counsel for applicants argued that the concerned Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure of investigation and nothing has been done by him as per law. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicants but without considering the said facts and without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned taken cognizance over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for applicant produced before the Court several applications which were made by applicant himself to the concerned authorities and several orders passed by them, the said applications and orders have already been appended along with this application. 5. Per contra, learned AGA-I 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 applicants, 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 the perusal of the material available on record 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-I has no objection. 11. In view of thereof, if in case, applicants surrender before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail applications 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 :- 1.5.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad