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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31716 of 2025

Devi Prasad Rai And Another

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

¶5

Court No. - 77

¶6

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 51236 of 2022 (State vs. Ghanshyam Rai and others) as well as charge sheet dated 20.7.2022 including cognizance/summoning order dated 16.12.2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate-12, Ghazipur arising out of Case Crime no. 124 of 2022 under sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, PSDullahpur, District Ghazipur.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motive of opposite party no. 2/informant. Injuries sustained by injured are simple in nature. In fact, applicants were trying to restrain informant from digging on their land due to which informant himself have beaten the applicants and thereafter lodged the present FIR on basis of false and fabricated story. Applicants have no criminal history to their credit. No offence under sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC is made out against the applicants and as such impugned cognizance order and charge sheet are liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application.

¶11

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the

¶12

NA528 No. 31716 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

parties and perusing the records, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage of 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".

¶15

From perusal of the material on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicants are factual issues that requires proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. In proceeding u/s 528 BNSS, this Court is not inclined to hold mini-trial.

¶16

It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

¶17

In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶18

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶19

November 25, 2025 Shaswat

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Prasad Rai and Another 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

Nawabuddin vs State of U.P. and Another

Firasat Alias Firasat Ali and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gunjan Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Jayant Sen and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Hariom Alias Hariom Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another