The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that at the stage of taking cognizance, a court is only required to determine if a prima facie case exists, not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. This judgment underscores the limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the cognizance stage and the high threshold for quashing proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Amit Kasana and another, were accused in Case Crime No. 24 of 2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case arose from an FIR lodged at Police Station Khoda, Ghaziabad, alleging offences of assault, criminal intimidation, and attempt to murder. The applicants challenged the chargesheet dated 27.11.2024 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 29.11.2024 in Criminal Case No. 2293 of 2024 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (SD), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad.
Key Facts
- The FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2 (the complainant) against the applicants and others.
- The applicants contended that the alleged incident occurred in Delhi, outside the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Khoda, Ghaziabad.
- The applicants argued that the chargesheet was filed without fair investigation and that the trial court took cognizance without applying its judicial mind.
- The applicants claimed they were falsely implicated due to a long-standing family dispute with the complainant.
- The Investigating Officer found discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence but proceeded with the chargesheet.
Procedural History
- Case Crime No. 24 of 2024: FIR lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, and 34 IPC at P.S. Khoda, Ghaziabad.
- 27.11.2024: Chargesheet filed by the Investigating Officer.
- 29.11.2024: Cognizance/summoning order passed by the ACJM (SD), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad.
- Application u/s 528 BNSS: Filed by the applicants challenging the chargesheet and cognizance order.
- 29.04.2026: Present application heard and dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought quashing of the chargesheet dated 27.11.2024, the cognizance order dated 29.11.2024, and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2293 of 2024 on the grounds of:
- Lack of territorial jurisdiction.
- False implication due to personal vendetta.
- Abuse of process of law by the trial court.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the chargesheet and cognizance order could be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the grounds that:
- The alleged offence occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned police station.
- The trial court took cognizance without applying its judicial mind.
- The applicants were falsely implicated due to a personal dispute.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicants
- The applicants contended that the Investigating Officer failed to conduct a fair investigation, as the place of occurrence was found to be in Delhi, not Ghaziabad.
- They argued that the trial court took cognizance mechanically, without scrutinizing the territorial jurisdiction or the merits of the case.
- Reliance was placed on S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar to argue that the test for cognizance is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not sufficient ground for conviction.
- It was submitted that the chargesheet was filed in bad faith to harass the applicants, given the long-standing family dispute.
For the Respondent/State
- The Assistant Government Advocate (AGA) opposed the application, arguing that the contentions raised by the applicants involved disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, which could not be adjudicated at this stage.
- It was submitted that at the cognizance stage, the court is only required to record a prima facie opinion based on the material on record, not to hold a mini trial.
- The AGA relied on Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation to argue that the test for cognizance is whether the material is sufficient for proceeding, not for proving guilt.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal principles governing cognizance and the scope of Section 528 BNSS. It observed 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."
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar and Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation to hold that the test for cognizance is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. The Court emphasized 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'."
The Court further noted that the applicants’ submissions pertained to disputed questions of fact, such as the place of occurrence and the alleged false implication, which could not be adjudicated under Section 528 BNSS. The Court held that:
"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."
The Court also referred to its recent judgment dated 06.05.2024 in Kailash and another v. State of U.P. and another, which reiterated the same legal position.
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS, holding that:
- The trial court’s cognizance order was based on a prima facie case, and the applicants’ contentions involved disputed questions of fact.
- The chargesheet and cognizance order could not be quashed at this stage, as the test for cognizance is sufficient ground for proceeding, not sufficient ground for conviction.
- The applicants were not precluded from raising their arguments regarding territorial jurisdiction or false implication before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cognizance Requires Only Prima Facie Case
- Practitioners must note that Section 528 BNSS does not permit quashing of proceedings merely because the evidence is weak or the defence is strong.
- The test for cognizance is whether there is sufficient material to proceed, not whether the accused is likely to be convicted.
- Courts will not adjudicate disputed questions of fact at the cognizance stage, leaving such matters for trial.
Territorial Jurisdiction Must Be Raised Before Trial Court
- Arguments regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction must be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage, as the High Court will not entertain such pleas under Section 528 BNSS.
- The burden is on the accused to prove lack of jurisdiction during trial, not at the cognizance stage.
False Implication and Personal Vendetta
- Mere allegations of false implication or personal vendetta are insufficient to quash proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.
- The accused must provide concrete evidence of malicious prosecution or abuse of process, which can only be adjudicated during trial.
- Courts will not interfere at the cognizance stage based on bare assertions of false implication.
