Madhoo Yadav @ Shraddha Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11344 of 2026

Madhoo Yadav @ Shraddha

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Araf Khan, Sonakshi Arora Anurag Prasad, 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 charge sheet dated 11.6.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 9.9.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra and entire proceeding of Case no. 18249 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 299 of 2024 under sections 386, 120B, 506 IPC, PS- Sikandra, District Agra.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motive of opposite party no. 2. Applicant is not assigned any specific overt act constituting extortion or criminal intimidation, rendering the allegations against her vague and unsustainable. No ingredients of Section 386 IPC are made out. None of the prosecution witnesses have alleged any act of physical threat by the applicant 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 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

¶12

NA528 No. 11344 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

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 applicant. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicant 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 . However, applicant is at liberty to avail all other remedy available at law.

¶18

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶19

May 6, 2026

¶20

Shaswat

¶21

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

Madhoo Yadav @ Shraddha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhoo Yadav @ Shraddha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yusuf and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Birbal Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naim Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Afsar and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and Another