Saddam Husain v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

#1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, Sri A.K. Mishra along with Sri Dipak Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.4 and Ms. Priti Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

#2. The present application has been preferred challenging the chargesheet dated 08.12.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 25.03.2025 along with entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.48 of 2025 (State Vs. Saddam Hussain), arising out of Case Crime No.196 of 2024, under Section 76, 333, 351(2), 78(2), 296 BNS and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Konch, District Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jalaun at Orai.

#3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present by opposite party no.4 only to harass him since FIR was lodged on dated 02.09.2024 whereas alleged incident was said to be taken place on 08.08.2024 i.e. after 25 days of alleged incident. Learned counsel for applicant also submitted that as per medical report, no injury was sustained by injury as well as there are contradictions between the statements of sister of victim and one eye witness, namely, Akbar. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that the case is otherwise that informant was involved in some illegal activities and being a reporter, applicant flashed the same over his news channel at YouTube and being aggrieved with the same, she implicated the applicant in the present case. 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 which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed.

#4. Per contra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of opposite parties 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 has also been 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 victims recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS through which she had fully supported the narrations made in the FIR 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 the aforesaid reasons, the prayer sought through the present application is refused, however, applicant will be liberty to avail the remedies which are available to him as per law.

#9. Accordingly, the instant application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Vivek Kr. VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad