Allahabad High Court
Sadan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:108666
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28207 of 2021
Sadan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Mahendra Singh, Rakesh Kumar Maurya, Shweta Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 6.9.2016 and cognizance/summoning order dated 15.2.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh as well as entire proceeding of Crl. Case No.12820 of 2021 (State Vs. Sadan) arising out of Case Crime No.287 of 2016, under Sections 292 I.P.C. and 67 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of false and baseless allegations and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged incident. It is further submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered either from the possession of the applicant or at his instance. Learned counsel further submits that there is neither any eye-witness nor any independent witness to support the alleged recovery shown in the recovery memo. It is also submitted that the applicant is a student and the shop in question is in the name of his father, namely, Furkan Ali, who is running and managing the said shop. Learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer failed to conduct a fair and proper investigation and, without properly appreciating the material available on record and submitted the charge sheet against the applicant. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, without due application of judicial mind, took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 15.02.2021. Therefore, the impugned order and charge sheet are liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and contended that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned cognizance order strictly in accordance with law. It is submitted that, at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out or not. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed after due investigation and the material collected therein clearly discloses the commission of offences against the applicant. There is no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.
5. From the record, it transpires that opposite party No. 2 lodged a First Information Report, registered as Case Crime No.287 of 2016, under Section 292 I.P.C. and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, at Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh, against the applicant alleging therein that while opposite party No. 2 along with other police personnel was on patrolling duty, he received information that a boy running Raj Mobile Center was downloading obscene videos. Acting upon the said information, the police personnel reached the shop in question and, upon checking the laptop kept therein, found indecent videos downloaded in the laptop. It was further alleged that the applicant confessed that he had downloaded the obscene videos, thereafter, the police recovered and seized the laptop from the shop. After due investigation, submitted charge sheet against the applicant. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the police report and the material brought on record, formed an opinion that a prima facie case was made out against the applicant and accordingly summoned him vide order dated 15.02.2021.
6. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the 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 B.N.S.S. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
7. Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate has proceeded in accordance with law. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned summoning order. Therefore, the prayer for setting aside the same is hereby refused.
8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.) May 11, 2026 Md Faisal