HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14288 of 2026 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge sheet dated 26.12.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 24.2.2026 and entire proceeding of Case no. 10345 of 2026 (State vs. Aman Verma) arising out of Case Crime no. 256 of 2025 under sections 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4) BNS, PS- Barra, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motive of opposite party no. 2. There is delay of about one month in lodging FIR. The injuries sustained by the injured are neither grievous nor dangerous to life, hence the offence under Section 109 BNS is not made out against the applicant. The prosecution has not assigned any motive against the present applicant for commission of crime and in absence of any strong motive applicant has no occasion to commit the alleged crime and as such impugned cognizance order and charge sheet are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application. 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 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Mishra, Vikas Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Aman Verma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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". 6. From perusal of the material on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicant are factual issues that requires proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. In proceeding u/s 528 BNSS, this Court is not inclined to hold mini-trial. 7. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 8. In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, applicant is at liberty to avail all other remedy available at law. May 7, 2026 Shaswat NA528 No. 14288 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad