Dismissed

Saurabh Alias Saurabh Pathak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025NA528/30524/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of cognizance order and proceedings alleging false implication and no specific role in FIR. Court held that at cognizance stage only a prima facie opinion is required, submissions raised disputed questions of fact, and dismissed the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Saurabh Alias Saurabh Pathak and 2 Others vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30524 of 2025

¶2

Saurabh Alias Saurabh Pathak And 2 Others

¶3

Versus		.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Subodh	Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 77

¶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 cognizance order dated 24.07.2024 along with entire proceedings of Case No.1127 of 2024 (State Vs. Aas Hariom and others), arising out of Case Crime No.247 of 2022, under Section 147, 323, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. Naraura, District Bulandshahar, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopshahar, Bulandshahar.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass them since no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by them. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that no specific role has been assigned to applicants through narration of the FIR. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that victim herself stated that she has not received any injury in the alleged incident due to which, no medical examination was conducted. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicants to corroborate them with the alleged incident. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicants whereupon

¶9

NA528 No. 30524 of 2025

¶10

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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) .

¶15

From perusal of the material available on record in shape of narrations made in the FIR, chargesheet, statement recorded

¶16

NA528 No. 30524 of 2025

¶17

¶18

during investigation 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

November 26, 2025 Vivek Kr.

¶22

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶23

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

Saurabh Alias Saurabh Pathak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Saurabh Alias Saurabh Pathak and 2 Others 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

Narendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Devi Prasad Rai and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Nanhey @ Nanhe vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Nisha Singh vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Amar Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another