HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21458 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Maha Prasad, learned counsel for applicant and opposite party no.2 in person as well as learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present application has been preferred challenging chargesheet dated 03.03.2016 and cognizance order dated 29.03.2017 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.319 of 2017 (State Vs. Umesh Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.409 of 2015, under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Phulpur, District Allahabad, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Allahabad. 3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass him since in pursuance of the same incident, one FIR bearing Case Crime No.406 of 2015 has also been lodged by applicant against opposite party no.2 alongwith others, meaning thereby, the present criminal proceedings is a counter-blast. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that a civil matter is already persisting between the parties in respect of cancellation of sale deed and being annoyed with the same, the present criminal proceedings have been initiated by way of implicating the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that by bare perusal of the statement of independent witnesses, no offence as narrated through the FIR, has ever been committed by applicant and moreso, in the said incident, applicant had received serious injuries caused by opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicant to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Maha Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Kumar Jaiswal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) corroborate him with the alleged incident. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicant whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed. 4. Per contra, opposite party no.2 in person as well as 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. 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 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. 6. 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 NA528 No. 21458 of 2026 2 under Article 227 no. 3254 of 2024 (Kailash and another vs. State of U.P. and another). 7. 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. 8. On the aforesaid reasons, the present application is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed. 9. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the applicant from availing the remedies which are available to him as per law. September 14, 2026 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 21458 of 2026 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad