Dismissed¶8

Akhilesh Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2025NA528/25581/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application u/s 528 BNSS to quash charge-sheet 22.01.2024, supplementary charge-sheet 08.02.2024, cognizance/summoning order 16.02.2024 and Session Trial No.1403 of 2025 (Case Crime No.464 of 2023, ss. 323, 506, 307 IPC, P.S. Khajani, Gorakhpur) dismissed. Cognizance stage requires only prima facie opinion, not mini trial; disputed questions of fact not adjudicable u/s 528 BNSS. Relied on S.W. Palanitkar (2002) 1 SCC 241, Nupur Talwar (2012) 11 SCC 465, Kailash (Matters under Art. 227 No. 3254 of 2024, dt. 6.5.2024).

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. ¶5

Akhilesh Tripathi vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet dated 22.01.2024, the supplementary charge-sheet dated 08.02.2024, the cognizance/summoning order dated 16.02.2024 and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.1403 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.464 of 2023 (sections 323, 506, 307 IPC) should be quashed under section 528 BNSS.

¶2

Court's answer

¶5

Ratio / Principle

From perusal of the material available on record (narrations in the FIR, chargesheet, statements recorded during investigation) and the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶7

Key takeaways

All the submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of the power conferred under Section 528 BNSS.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) dismissed an application under section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 22.01.2024, the supplementary charge-sheet dated 08.02.2024, the cognizance/summoning order dated 16.02.2024 and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.1403 of 2025 (State vs. Akhilesh Tripathi & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.464 of 2023, under sections 323, 506, 307 IPC, P.S. Khajani, District Gorakhpur. Held: at the stage of taking cognizance/summoning the Magistrate is only required to record a prima facie opinion on the material on record and is not expected to hold a mini trial or examine the defence of the accused, relying on S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241; Nupur Talwar v. CBI, (2012) 11 SCC 465; and the Allahabad High Court decision in Kailash v. State of U.P., Matters under Article 227 No. 3254 of 2024 (judgment dated 6.5.2024). The applicant's contentions of false implication, suspicious injuries and lack of fair investigation were held to be disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Section 528 BNSS.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25581 of 2025

¶3

Akhilesh Tripathi		.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Anil Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 77

¶4

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The instant application under section 528 BNSS has been preferred to quash the charge-sheet dated 22.01.2024 along with supplementary charge-sheet dated 08.02.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 16.02.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.1403 of 2025 (State vs. Akhilesh Tripathi & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.464 of 2023, under sections 323, 506, 307 IPC, P.S. Khajani, DistrictGorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Judicial MagistrateIII, Gorakhpur.

¶7

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 no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by him. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that the injuries examined by concerned Medical Officer are very suspicious. Learned counsel for applicant further

¶8

NA528 No. 25581 of 2025

¶9

¶10

submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicant to corroborate them 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.

¶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

¶13

NA528 No. 25581 of 2025

¶14

¶15

the case or the evidence.

¶16

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) .

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

November 6, 2025 Saif

¶20

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Tripathi 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

Similar cases

Shadab Ali Khan vs Smt. Shabad Khanum and Another

Mohit Jakhmola vs State of U.P. and Another

Mange Ram vs State of U.P. and Another

Rewati Prasad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Tayyab vs State of U.P. and Another