Allahabad High Court
Abhijeet Yadav Alias Juthan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64536
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11992 of 2025
Applicant :- Abhijeet Yadav Alias Juthan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Singh Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The present application has been preferred challenging the chargesheet no.01/2024 dated 05.06.2024 and summoning order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No.1478 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.77 of 2024, under Section 354A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Uhaon, District Ballia along with entire criminal proceedings of the said case, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.2, Ballia.
3. Brief facts of the present case are that informant/victim/opposite party no.2 lodged FIR against applicant bearing Case Crime No.77 of 2024 alleging that applicant by using vulgar as well as abusing words, was harassing her and tried to give her mobile forcibly. After lodging of the FIR, inquiry was initiated and during inquiry, statements of victim along with witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after conduction of the inquiry, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet on dated 05.06.2024 against applicant for offence under Section 354A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act whereupon learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence vide order dated 27.11.2024 and summoned the applicant for facing trial which impugned the present application.
4. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to some money transaction. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant was living in Delhi and when he came to his native place for appearing in Class-XIIth examination, he was implicated falsely in the present case. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that without conducting fair investigation and only relying upon the statement of victim, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicant but without considering the said facts and without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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).
8. From perusal of the material available on record in shape of narrations made in the FIR as well as statements 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.
9. On aforesaid reason, the present application is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed.
10. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the applicant from availing the remedies which are available to him as per law.
Order Date :- 25.4.2025
Vivek Kr.
