Dismissed¶16

Abhijeet Yadav Alias Juthan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2025NA528/11992/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application under S.528 BNSS (Application No.11992 of 2025) dismissed by Allahabad High Court; cognizance/summoning stage requires only a prima facie opinion, no mini trial; test is 'sufficient ground for proceeding' not 'sufficient ground for conviction'; disputed questions of fact not adjudicable at quashing stage; POCSO/IPC case (Ss.354A, 504, 506 IPC; 7/8 POCSO) from P.S. Uhaon, District Ballia; precedents relied on: S.W. Palanitkar (2002) 1 SCC 241; Nupur Talwar (2012) 11 SCC 465; Kailash v. State of U.P., Matters under Article 227 No.3254 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

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. ¶12

Abhijeet Yadav Alias Juthan vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet no.01/2024 dated 05.06.2024, the summoning/cognizance order dated 27.11.2024 and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.77 of 2024 should be quashed on the ground that cognizance was taken without applying judicial mind, constituting abuse of process of law.

¶10

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

At the stage of taking cognizance, the court's primary focus is to determine whether a prima facie case exists, i.e., whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest an offence has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence.

¶12

Key takeaways

On the material on record (FIR narrations and statements recorded during investigation) it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant; all submissions advanced at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 BNSS.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Order Date 25.4.2025) dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of chargesheet no.01/2024 dated 05.06.2024 and the summoning order dated 27.11.2024 in Sessions Trial No.1478 of 2024 (Case Crime No.77 of 2024, Sections 354A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Uhaon, District Ballia), together with the entire criminal proceedings before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.2, Ballia. Relying on S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241 ('sufficient ground for proceeding', not 'sufficient ground for conviction'), Nupur Talwar v. CBI, (2012) 11 SCC 465, and the Court's own recent decision in Matters under Article 227 No.3254 of 2024 (Kailash v. State of U.P.), it held that at the cognizance/summoning stage the Magistrate need only record a prima facie opinion on the material on record and is not expected to hold a mini trial or examine the accused's defence. Finding the applicant's contentions (false implication owing to a money transaction; charge-sheeting resting solely on the victim's statement without fair investigation) to be disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Section 528 BNSS, the Court dismissed the application, clarifying that the applicant remains free to avail other remedies available under law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64536

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11992 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Abhijeet Yadav Alias Juthan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The present application has been preferred challenging the chargesheet no.01/2024 dated 05.06.2024 and summoning order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No.1478 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.77 of 2024, under Section 354A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Uhaon, District Ballia along with entire criminal proceedings of the said case, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.2, Ballia.

¶8

Brief facts of the present case are that informant/victim/opposite party no.2 lodged FIR against applicant bearing Case Crime No.77 of 2024 alleging that applicant by using vulgar as well as abusing words, was harassing her and tried to give her mobile forcibly. After lodging of the FIR, inquiry was initiated and during inquiry, statements of victim along with witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after conduction of the inquiry, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet on dated 05.06.2024 against applicant for offence under Section 354A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act whereupon learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence vide order dated 27.11.2024 and summoned the applicant for facing trial which impugned the present application.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to some money transaction. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant was living in Delhi and when he came to his native place for appearing in Class-XIIth examination, he was implicated falsely in the present case. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that without conducting fair investigation and only

¶10

relying upon the statement of victim, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicant but without considering the said facts and without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 under Article 227 no. 3254 of 2024 (Kailash and another vs. State of U.P. and another) .

¶14

From perusal of the material available on record in shape of narrations made in the FIR as well as statements recorded during investigation and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it

¶15

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.

¶16

On aforesaid reason, the present application is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed .

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Vivek Kr.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhijeet Yadav Alias Juthan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijeet Yadav Alias Juthan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sunita and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Vidya Kumari and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Roshani Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rampal Patel vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Irshad and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Fateh Singh vs State of U.P. and Another