Dismissed¶18

Sukhveer Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2026NA528/15768/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings — Section 528 BNSS — cognizance/summoning stage — prima facie opinion only, no mini trial — 'sufficient ground for proceeding' vs 'sufficient ground for conviction' — Sections 323, 324, 325, 307, 452, 504, 506 IPC — civil dispute given criminal colour — chargesheet and cognizance — abuse of process — disputed questions of fact — Allahabad High Court — application dismissed with liberty to avail remedies.

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. ¶12

Sukhveer Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 732 of 2024 (arising out of Case Crime No. 296 of 2023, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 307, 452, 504, 506 IPC) are liable to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS as an abuse of the process of law, the applicants alleging false implication, a civil dispute given criminal colour, and cognizance taken on the chargesheet without application of judicial mind.

¶10

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

On the material on record — the narrations in the FIR, the chargesheet, the statements recorded during investigation and the injury report — it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶17

Key takeaways

The submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 BNSS.ratio¶17
The dismissal does not preclude the applicants from availing the remedies available to them as per law.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), April 20, 2026 — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 15768 of 2026, Sukhveer Singh and 2 others v. State of U.P. and another. The applicants sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 732 of 2024 (State v. Sukhveer Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 296 of 2023 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 307, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gunnour, District Sambhal, pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi, contending false implication, that a plot dispute with opposite party no. 2 had been given criminal colour, and that cognizance was taken on the chargesheet without application of judicial mind. Held, dismissing the application: (i) at the stage of taking cognizance/summoning the Magistrate need only 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, the test being whether there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding' and not 'sufficient ground for conviction' (relying on S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241; Nupur Talwar v. CBI, (2012) 11 SCC 465; and this Court's decision in Kailash v. State of U.P., Matters under Article 227 No. 3254 of 2024, dated 6.5.2024); (ii) on the FIR narrations, chargesheet, statements recorded during investigation and the injury report, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the applicants; (iii) the submissions raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS. Liberty reserved to the applicants to avail remedies available as per law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15768 of 2026

¶2

Sukhveer Singh And 2 Others

¶3

	.....Ap	plicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another	....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahenam Gaur, Raje	Haroon, sh Kumar	Pratham Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No.- 77

¶4

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application has been preferred challenging entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.732 of 2024 (State Vs. Sukhveer Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.296 of 2023, under Section 323, 324, 325, 307, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gunnour, District Sambhal, pending before learned District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi.

¶7

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 plot of applicant no.1 is adjacent to the plot of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 wants to grab the same and due to the same dispute, a civil suit preferred at the behest of opposite party no.2 against applicant no.1, is already pending wherein no interim order has been granted. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that only to make pressure upon the applicants, the present criminal proceedings have been initiated giving criminal colour to a civil dispute. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicants to corroborate them with

¶8

NA528 No. 15768 of 2026

¶9

¶10

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 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 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.

¶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 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

¶14

NA528 No. 15768 of 2026

¶15

¶16

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 as well as injury report 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.

¶18

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

¶19

However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the applicant from availing the remedies which are available to them as per law.

¶20

April 20, 2026 Vivek Kr.

¶21

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶22

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

Sukhveer Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhveer Singh and 2 Others 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

Altaf Mohammad Alias Munna vs State of U.P. and Another

Purushottam and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Harsh Sharma vs State of U.P.

Laxmi Kant Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagat Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another