Allahabad High Court
Reema Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63811 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4097 of 2025 Applicant :- Reema Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Khare 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 31.08.2024 and cognizance order dated 24.09.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.85592 of 2024 (State Vs. Reema Yadav and another), arising out of Case Crime No.248 of 2024, under Section 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS and Section 7/13, 4/13 of Sarvajanik Pariksha Adhiniyam, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Court No.3, Varanasi.
3. Brief facts of the present case are that on 07.07.2024, CTET Examination was going on at Sunbeam English School, Bhagwandas Lanka, Varanasi and all the aspirants were permitted to appear through biometric entry. During examination, a phone call came on the mobile of informant/opposite party no.2 from CBSE, New Delhi that Roll No.230003779 belongs to applicant (Reema Yadav) and there is a mismatch of photograph and aspirant appearance is doubtful. When aspirant was inquired, she told her name as Archana Pandey and she also stated that she is giving exam in place of applicant by way of preparing forged admit card and PAN card. In pursuance of the said incident, an FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 bearing Case Crime No.248 of 2024 and after lodging of the FIR, inquiry was initiated and during inquiry, statements of concerned persons were recorded and after conduction of the inquiry, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet on dated 31.08.2024 against applicant for offence under318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS and Section 7/13, 4/13 of Sarvajanik Pariksha Adhiniyam whereupon learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence vide order dated 24.09.2024 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 since she had never applied for CTET Examination which can also be verified by calling the records. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that without collecting any digital as well as documentary evidence with discloses the involvement of applicant in the present case, submitted chargesheet against applicant whereupon 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. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has no concern with Archana Pandey and she never met her and moreso, if Archana Pandey was appearing in the said Examination in place of applicant by pasting her photo and in case, she passed then the CTET certificate will be in no use of applicant since the same might have been issued with photograph of Archana Pandey.
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.
Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Vivek Kr.