HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15942 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 30.9.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 9.11.2023 and entire proceeding of Case no. 1875 of 2023 (State vs. Sundaram Pandey and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 235 of 2022 under sections 143, 145, 147, 149, 153, 341, 186, 353, 504 IPC, PS- Lalganj, District Mirzapur. 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. All the applicants were familiar with the deceased persons and they all got shocked after the said incident and after hearing the news of death of two persons in the said incident and they were not in a stable state of mind as any person who will see the body parts of his close one lying over the road would not be able to restrain himself from the grief which itself is a natural phenomena and due to this reason only all the applicants were named in the FIR. There is nothing on record to show that the applicants have misbehaved with the police authorities as only the applicants were questioning the work ethics of concerned police authority. No offence is made out against the applicants 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinav Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sundaram Pandey And 19 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 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 applicants. Arguments so raised by learned counsel for applicants for seeking defence of the charges levelled against them are subject matter of trial and same cannot be adjudicated by way of conducting mini trial in proceeding under Section 528 BNSS which has been denied by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicants 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. 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 5, 2026 Shaswat NA528 No. 15942 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad