Hillo @ Salma Begum and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45310 of 2025

Hillo @ Salma Begum And 3 Others

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

¶5

Court No. - 75

¶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 9.4.2022 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 16.11.2023 passed in Case no. 6273 of 2022 (State vs. Chillo and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 0050 of 2022 under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Kotwali Nagar, District Aligarh.

¶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. Opposite party no. 2 has lodged the false FIR against the applicants and also got prepared the manipulated injury report. Prima facie, no offence under sections 323, 504, 506 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 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

¶12

NA528 No. 45310 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

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 including the injury report, 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

February 10, 2026

¶20

Shaswat

¶21

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

Hillo @ Salma Begum and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hillo @ Salma Begum and 3 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

Divyansh Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Thekedar Rampravesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Patel and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Devendra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Arbaaj vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another