HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14304 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 17.4.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 26.9.2025 and entire proceeding of Case no. 10814 of 25/9 arising out of Case Crime no. 321 of 2024 under sections 106, 125, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, PS- Pakbara, District Moradabad. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motive of opposite party no. 2. The specific case of the applicant is that he is merely husband of the owner of the building in which alleged Maqdomi Hospital, Sambhal has been run by Dr. Farha. Even though the statement of Dr. Farha has not been properly recorded and the relevant documents have not been verified during the investigation. Therefore, the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer appears to be completely improper 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Mohd. Iqbal Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd Rahil .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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". 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. May 7, 2026 Shaswat NA528 No. 14304 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad