Dismissed¶8

Anup Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2025NA528/6061/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of chargesheet and cognizance/summoning order; application under Section 528 BNSS; prima facie opinion at cognizance stage; no mini trial; sufficient ground for proceeding versus conviction; disputed questions of fact; minor accused; false implication; alleged unfair investigation; Section 4/25 Arms Act; Case Crime No.115 of 2024, P.S. Padri, Mirzapur; S.W. Palanitkar (2002) 1 SCC 241; Nupur Talwar (2012) 11 SCC 465; Kailash v. State of U.P. (Article 227 No. 3254 of 2024); Allahabad High Court; Saurabh Srivastava, J.; decided 22.8.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:145157.

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

Anup Kumar Pandey 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 chargesheet dated 15.06.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 20.07.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No.301 of 2024 are liable to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the grounds of false implication of a minor applicant, absence of any recovery from him, and unfair investigation. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The submissions made on behalf of the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

¶5

Key takeaways

At the stage of taking cognizance, the court's primary focus is to determine whether a prima facie case exists, i.e., sufficient evidence to suggest an offence has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence.ratio¶5
On perusal of the material available on record (narrations in the FIR, chargesheet and statements recorded during investigation) and the facts of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the applicant.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 528 BNSS (Allahabad High Court) seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 15.06.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.07.2024 in Case No.301 of 2024 (State v. Anup Kumar Pandey), arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 2024, under Section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Padri, District Mirzapur, on grounds of false implication of a minor applicant, no recovery from him, and unfair investigation. 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, as laid down in S.W. Palanitkar (2002) 1 SCC 241 and Nupur Talwar (2012) 11 SCC 465; the test is sufficient ground for proceeding, not for conviction; the applicant's contentions raised disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Section 528 BNSS, and on the record it could not be said that no offence was made out. Application dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145157

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6061 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Anup Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been preferred challenging chargesheet dated 15.06.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.07.2024 along with entire proceedings of Case No.301 of 2024 (State Vs. Anup Kumar Pandey), arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 2024, under Section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Padri, District Mirzapur, pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.3, Mirzapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant has argued that applicant is a minor and has falsely been implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass him since no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by applicant. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicant and the alleged recovery of one knife which has been shown by police, has never been used in any crime. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that due to certain dispute between his father and one police person who is posted at same police station, applicant was implicated in the

¶9

present case. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicant but without considering the said facts and 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

¶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 along with 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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Vivek Kr.

¶17

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

Anup Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anup Kumar Pandey 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