Darshini Javaraiah vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18817 of 2025

Darshini Javaraiah	.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar, Tirpathi	Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No.- 77

¶3

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶4

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

¶5

The present application has been preferred challenging chargesheet dated 19.12.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 03.01.2023 passed in Case No.138 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.123 of 2022, under Section 384, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Section 142 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass her since no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by her in shape of blackmailing opposite party no.2. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that the present case is a counter-blast of the case bearing Case Crime No.142 of 2024 which has been preferred at the behest of applicant against opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that the applicant has never demanded any money to opposite party no.2 nor the same has ever been deposited by him in the account pertains to applicant. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicant to corroborate her with the

¶7

NA528 No. 18817 of 2025

¶8

2

¶9

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.

¶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 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.

¶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 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.

¶12

The aforementioned legal position has also been considered in a recent decision of this Court in the judgment dated 6.5.2024

¶13

NA528 No. 18817 of 2025

¶14

3

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

October 27, 2025 Vivek Kr.

¶20

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶21

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

Darshini Javaraiah v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshini Javaraiah v. State of U.P. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Khusro Yusuf and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Bitto @ Jitendra vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Kumari Muskan Chawla vs State of Up and Another

Niyaj vs State of U.P. and Another

Afzal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another