Dismissed

Akash Khatana and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2025NA528/1748/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought to quash the chargesheet and cognizance order on grounds of false implication and forged medical reports. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that at the stage of cognizance, the Magistrate only needs to ascertain if a prima facie case exists. The disputes raised regarding evidence and medical reports were held to be questions of fact for trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

Akash Khatana and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145269

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1748 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Akash Khatana And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Ranjana Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been preferred challenging Chargesheet No.589/2024 dated 15.09.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 18.09.2024 along with entire proceedings of Case No.17894 of 2024 (State Vs.Akash @ Akash Khatana and another), arising out of Case Crime No.512 of 2024, under Section 109, 351(2), 352, 115(2) BNS and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar.

¶8

3.Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 with an intention to harass them, as no offence, as alleged in the FIR, has ever been committed by them. It is further submitted that, in collusion with certain police personnel and a doctors of a private hospital, forged medical reports have been prepared, which suffer from several discrepancies relating to the size and nature of the wound, the entry and exit points, the alleged surgery, and the discharge of the injured from the hospital. Learned counsel has argued that a person who sustains a gunshot injury on the face, cannot possibly be discharged within two days,

¶9

as is claimed in this case, which clearly indicates that no such injury was sustained by the injured. It is also emphasized that there is no independent witness to the alleged occurrence. Moreover, without conducting a fair and proper investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet, and the learned court concerned, without due consideration of these facts and without applying its judicial mind, proceeded to take cognizance, which amounts to an abuse of the process of law and as such, the proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶10

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 applicants, 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.

¶11

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

¶12

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, chargesheet, medical reports and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. 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.

¶15

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

¶16

However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the applicants from availing the remedies which are available to them as per law.

¶17

Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Vivek Kr.

¶18

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

Akash Khatana and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Akash Khatana and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Shukla @ Santosh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Mohan Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Danish vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhoora and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Avadh Kevat vs State of U.P.

Abdul Gani vs State of U.P. and Another