Allahabad High Court
Churchil Adhikari vs State Of U.P. on 12 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137757 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11385 of 2025 Applicant :- Churchil Adhikari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh 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 dated 11.04.2021 and cognizance order dated 16.06.2021 as well as summoning order dated 19.07.2021 passed in Sessions Trail No. 856 of 2021 (State Vs. Churchil Adhikari), arising out of Case Crime No. 0090 of 2021, under Section 74 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Section 66 of I.T. Act and Section 23 of POCSO Act, Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Gorakhpur.
3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present by the first informant only to harass him. Learned counsel for applicant further argued that by bare perusal of the averments of FIR as well as statements recorded during investigation, it appears that, no offence is made out against applicant. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that without conducting fair investigation, 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 over the said chargesheet and summoned the applicant which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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).
7. From the perusal of the material available on record in shape of statements of first informant, victim, mother of victim, applicant, co-accused persons, witnesses as well as Chauki In-charge 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.
8. On aforesaid reason, the present application is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2025 #Vik/-