HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33221 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. This matter is being taken up in the date fixed category. 2. On previous occasion, it was requested by learned counsel for applicant for apprising the latest stage of trial, but today when the matter has been taken up under the category of date fixed matter, none appeared on his behalf. However, learned AGA for State is present. 3. The instant application under section 528 BNSS has been preferred to quash the charge-sheet dated 09.11.2011, cognizance/summoning order dated 07.12.2011 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.341 of 2011 (State vs. Surendra Yadav & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.98 of 2011, under sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Balua, District- Chandauli, pending before learned court of Civil Judge (JD)/FTC Ist, Chandauli. 4. In the memo of affidavit filed in support of instant application, it has been averred that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass him since no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by him; there is hardly any evidence against the applicant to corroborate him with the alleged incident; it is also averred that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Shivam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Surendra Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) charge-sheet against applicant, whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence over the said charge-sheet, 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 considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of instant application and the submissions extended by learned AGA as well as 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 NA528 No. 33221 of 2026 2 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, chargesheet, 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 528 BNSS. 9. On the aforesaid reasons, the present application is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed. September 29, 2026 Saif NA528 No. 33221 of 2026 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad