Rahul Sharma And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another

Neutral Citation No. -
2026:AHC:148524
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No.-44666 of 2025
Rahul Sharma & Others …..Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Others …..Respondents/
Opposite Parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Vidit Narayan Mishra, J.B. Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Gautam Srivastava, A.G.A.
th
Reserved on 15 July, 2026
st
Delivered on 21 July, 2026
A.F.R.
Court No. - 81
HON’BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
V.N. Mishra and Mr. J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sagir
Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gautam Srivastava,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred
th
by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 8 October,
th
2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 6 November, 2024 as well as the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4461 of 2024 (State Vs. Seema &
Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 579 of 2023 under Sections 420, 409,
467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. Police Station-Sector-24, District-Gautam
Budh Nagar pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,
Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Renjith R. Nair, the Deputy
General Manager, Regional Head of South Indian Bank Ltd. lodged the
th
present F.I.R. on 18 December, 2023 against three named and others as
unknown including the applicants. In the said FIR it has been alleged that
Rahul Sharma (applicant no.1 herein), while posted as Assistant Manager at
the Sector-22, Noida Branch, entered into a criminal conspiracy with his wife,
mother and other unknown persons to dishonestly misappropriate

2
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
approximately Rs. 28.07 crore belonging to M/s Associated Electronics
Research Foundation (AERF). It is alleged that although applicant no.1
Rahul Sharma initially complained to the Bank as well as the local police that
he was being threatened by the directors of AERF and that they were
involved in illegal financial transactions, an internal vigilance inquiry
conducted by the Bank disclosed that he himself had manipulated the
banking system and carried out unauthorised transactions.
4. The Bank alleges that applicant no.1 Rahul Sharma altered the
customer details in the Core Banking System (CBS), linked AERF's
Customer Identification File (CIF) with another account, unauthorisedly
closed several fixed deposits, and diverted the proceeds to different bank
accounts through RTGS/NEFT/UPI/IMPS transactions. The inquiry further
revealed that the account opening forms and banking records contained
serious irregularities and that several transactions were verified by applicant
no.1 Rahul Sharma himself in abuse of his official position. It is also alleged
that fictitious entries were made to create an impression that the fixed
deposits were still intact by crediting interest amounts to AERF's account.
5. The investigation further disclosed that the diverted funds were routed
through multiple bank accounts maintained in nearly twenty different banks.
Out of the defalcated amount, substantial sums were allegedly transferred to
the accounts of Bhumika Sharma (applicant no.2 herein) (wife of applicant
no.1 Rahul Sharma) and Seema Rani (mother of Rahul Sharma), besides
other beneficiaries. The Bank also alleged that Rahul Sharma had been
suspended from service, was absconding, and had allegedly obtained a
duplicate passport, giving rise to an apprehension that he intended to leave
the country. On these allegations, the present F.I.R. was registered for
offences relating to cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and criminal
conspiracy.
6. After lodging of the above first information report, the investigation
proceeded and since the applicants left the Indian territory, as is admitted by
the applicants themselves and they are unapproachable for the Investigating
Officer, after completion of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C.,
the Investigation Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the
applicants as proclaimed absconder on which the order of
cognizance/summoning has been passed. Hence the present application
under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed before this Court through the real
sister of applicant no.1, namely, Annu Rani, who has also sworn the affidavit
in support of the present application.

3
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
7. It is pertinent to mention here that when after passing of the order of
summoning the applicants did not appear before the court below thereafter,
for ensuring their presence, bailable and non-bailable warrants have been
issued against the applicants. Despite the non-bailable warrants having been
issued against the applicants, they did not appear and thereafter proceedings
under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicants
and they have been declared as proclaimed absconder.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that in the
aforesaid case concerned police after completing investigation, submitted 3
charge sheets in different dates against different accused persons but so far
as the charge sheet against the applicants is concerned, they were neither
charge sheeted in the aforesaid 3 charge sheets and the investigating officer
of the said case after initiated proceeding under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C.
submitted charge sheet in absconding against the applicant No. 1 in under
Section- 420,409,467,468,471,120 B IPC & applicant No.2 in under Section-
420, 467,468,471,120-B IPC.
9. It is further contended that since the applicants are presently not
residing in Indian territory, as such, the proceedings under Sections 82 Cr.P
C. and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicants and thereafter
charge-sheet dated 08.10.2024 has been filed by the investigating officer
against the applicants. In the charge-sheet dated 08-10-2024, it has been
mentioned by the Investigating Officer that the KYC documents and sample
signatures of the fake account numbers, have already been obtained and
sent to F.S.L Niwadi, Ghaziabad and results of which have not been received
and at this stage it can't be proved that the applicants have committed said
offence, as alleged by the prosecution.
10. It is then contended that before lodging present first information report
dated 18-12-2023 applicant no.1 himself filed a complaint against the
directors of Associated Electronics Research Foundation (AERF) before
higher authorities of the bank on 03-12-2023 and also moved complaint
before concerned police station on 04-12-2023 for lodging the first
information report against the directors of Associated Electronics Research
Foundation (AERF). On the basis of said complaint of applicant No.1 dated
03-12-2023, an internal investigation was conducted by the bank in which it
was found that a dummy Joint Account Number as saving account no.
1013053000000165 and another saving account no. 1013053000000267
and one current account no. 1013073000000088 were opened in the name
of AERF & Gaurav Agrawal was closed the FD of 28.07 Crore of the

4
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
company Associated Electronics Research Foundation(AERF) and
transferred the same in the said saving account bearing No
1013053000000165, 1013053000000267 and current account No.
1013073000000088 and thereafter huge amounts were transferred to 96
different beneficiaries after closing fixed deposits without seeking any
permission from AERF.
11. It is also contended that it is surprising that a detail investigation was
conducted but who was misappropriated the funds and in whose name and
favor, dummy account was opened and from that account different amounts
were transferred to different accounts holders have even not been charge-
sheeted, though the entire alleged misappropriation of funds was transferred
from the account of Mr. Gaurav Agarwal to the different beneficiaries. At the
time of alleged incident, one Sri Gaurav Devgan was the Branch Manager
and applicant No.1 was Assistant Manager in South Indian Bank and the
applicant no.1 has no authority to open or close the fixed deposits of
Associated Electronics Research Foundation (AERF) and after the transfer
the Branch Manager Sri Gaurav Devgan, Ms. Annu Arora joined in the said
branch as Branch Manager and in her tenure, some fixed deposits of
Associated Electronics Research Foundation(AERF) were also opened and
closed and transferred the amount in the account of company.
12. So far as the allegations made in the first information report are
concerned, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants
that neither the applicant no.1 has opened any such type of Saving Bank/
Current account bearing No. 1013053000000165, 1013053000000267 and
current account No. 1013073000000088 in the name of AERF & Gaurav
Agrawal nor any amount has been credited in the account of applicant no. 1
form the said Saving Bank/ Current account of AERF & Gaurav Agrawal and
not even a single penny has been credited in the account of applicant No. 1
form the bank itself.
13. It is next contended that after lodging complaint regarding threat faced
by the applicant no.1 dated 03-12-2023 and before lodging present first
information report dated 18-12-2023, applicant no.1 left the Indian territory
and started residing at United Arab Emirates (UAE) with his wife (applicant
No.2) on 04-12-2023 and during that period, passports of the applicants were
impounded by the authority concerned and against the order of impounding
the passport of the applicants, they challenged before this Hon'ble High
Court by means Writ-C No.1593 of 2025 (Rahul Sharma Vs. Union of India

5
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
and another) and Writ-C No. 1597 of 2025 (Smt. Bhumika Sharma Vs. Union
of India and another) which are pending for its disposal.
14. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that
infact a joint account of saving account 1013053000000165 &
1013053000000267 and one current account No. 1013073000000088 was
opened in the name of AERF & Gaurav Agrawal by the said Gaurav Agrawal,
who is one of the director of aforesaid company, and with the help of branch
manager of said bank, closed the FD of 28.07 Crore of the company
Associated Electronics Research Foundation (AERF) and transfer the same
in the aforesaid 03 accounts on different dates and the said Gaurav Agrawal
and his associates has making pressure upon the applicant no. 1 to help in
their illegal activities, and when the applicant no. 1 has made complaint
against the directors of aforesaid company Associated Electronics Research
Foundation (AERF) before the higher officer of the bank and concern police
station, then the directors of aforesaid company with the collusion of bank
concerned, implicated the applicants in the instant case while the applicant
no.1 has never committed any such type of offence as alleged in the present
first information report. The applicant no.1 is only an Assistant Manager in
the aforesaid South Indian Bank and he has no authority to open/close fixed
deposit accounts of AERF but on the basis of statements recorded of
informant and other witnesses, the applicants have been charge sheeted in
the aforesaid matter, whereas applicant no.1 has no authority either to
change the password or closed the fixed deposits accounts of the aforesaid
company. The applicant no.2 has no concern with fraud of the bank as
alleged by the informant but she has only been implicated in the aforesaid
matter due to wife of the applicant no.1
15. So far as the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 with regard to the
maintainability of present application at the behest of the applicants as they
are absconder because after initiating proceedings Under Sections 82/83
Cr.P.C./ Sections 84/85 of BNSS, concerned police has submitted charge
sheet against the applicants as absconder, is concerned, it is contended by
the learned counsel for the applicants that they are not absconder on the
ground that before lodging present first information report dated 18-12-2023,
applicant no.1 left the Indian territory and started residing at U.A.E. with his
wife (applicant No.2) on 04-12-2023 and during that period passport of the
applicants were impounded by the authority concerned and against the order

6
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
of Impounding the passports of the applicants, they challenged same before
the Hon’ble High Court, which are pending for its disposal and the applicants
are not deliberately absconding in the present case.
16. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that co-accused, namely,
Seema Rani (mother of applicant no.1) has been granted anticipatory bail on
th
25 April, 2024, whereas other co-accused persons, namely, Jairijeshan,
Bibinsebastian and Vicky Kumar against whom first information report has
been lodged as unknown persons, who are class-III and Class-IV employees
of the Bank have also been enlarged on bail.
17. It is lastly contended that applicants are humble, innocent and law
abiding persons having no criminal antecedent upon them nor they are prior
convicts but they have been falsely implicated in the present case, when as a
matter of fact they have not committed any offence as alleged by opposite
party no.2.
18. On the above premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that
the present criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.
19. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the
learned A.G.A. have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the applicants.
20. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that applicant
no.1 was posted as Assistant Manager, South Indian Bank, Branch Sector
-22, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, who had fraudulently and dishonestly
withdrawn an amount of Rs. 28.07 crores from the account of customer of
the Bank, namely M/s. Associated Electronics Research foundation (AERF)
in collusion with other accused persons. Applicant no.2 is the wife of
applicant no. 1, and several huge amounts, which the applicant no.1 had
fraudulently and dishonestly withdrawn, had been transferred by him in the
account of Applicant no. 2.
21. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2
that upon an inquiry conducted by the Bank when it was found that a huge
amount/public money has been embezzled by the applicants and other
accused, the Bank lodged the instant first information report against them.
The applicants deliberately did not co-operate with the investigation and the

7
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
Investigating Officer even his best efforts could not succeed to apprehend
the applicants, when as a matter of fact such arrest of the applicants was
necessary according to Section 157 (1) of CrP.C. When all the best efforts
made by the Investigating Officer to arrest the applicants went in vain,
proceedings under Sections 82/83 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against them and
at last, applicants were declared as proclaimed absconder. The Investigating
Officer after being legal and logical end of the investigation forwarded a
police report against the applicants in a capacity of a proclaimed absconder,
before the learned concerned court according to Section 173 (2) of CrPC. On
08.10.2024. and 06.11.2024, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of
offence upon a police report in an abscondence of the applicants according
to Section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. The applicants are still proclaimed
absconder, as they do not believe in the majesty of the Hon'ble Court.
22. It is then submitted that the applicants through Smt. Annu Rani (sister
of applicant no.1) have filed the instant application under Section 528
B.N.S.S. for quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant criminal case
by invoking the extra ordinary power of this Hon'ble Court. However, the
instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is not maintainable, as the
applicants are proclaimed absconder. The present application filed under
Section 528 of BNSS by a Proclaimed Absconder is not maintainable. In
support of his case, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has relied upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhayay and others
Versus State of Bihar and another (Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 7940
of 2023, wherein it has been held that any relief cannot be granted to
proclaimed absconder (accused).
23. To highlight the aforesaid issue, learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 has also referred to the judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
in the case B. Lovejot Kaur Versus Harbhinder Singh reported in A.I.R. online
2022 P & Η 1029 and Uttrakhand High Court in the case of C. Rakesh Mehra
Versus State of Uttrakhand and others passed in Criminal Misc. Application
th
No. 135 of 2024, decided on 17 June, 2026.
24. So far as the merits of the present application is concerned, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that from the allegations made in the
First Information Report cognizable offence is made out against the
applicants. The defence of the applicants cannot be taken into consideration,
at this stage. Therefore, the applicants do not deserve any indulgence. This

8
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
Court in exercise of powers under Section 528 B.N.S.S. cannot exercise its
powers to interfere in the matter at this stage of the proceedings. At this
stage of the criminal proceedings, only prima faice case has to be seen.
25. To buttress the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.
Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Aryan Singh etc. reported in AIR
online 2023 SC 252, wherein the Apex Court has held that at the stage of
discharge and / or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court has a very limited jurisdiction,
and the court is not required to conduct the mini trial, as the charges are
required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution/investigating agency.
26. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, it has been urged by the
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in view of the aforesaid facts
and judgments quoted herein above, it is evident that the aforesaid case is
liable to be dismissed outrightly, on the ground that (i) the present application
has been filed by the proclaimed absconder (applicants), (ii) the High Court
in exercise of powers under Section 528 Cr.P.C., cannot evaluate the
evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation,
according to Section 2 (h) of Cr.P.C, meticulously and also the High Court
cannot not conduct a mini trial, (iii), since the applicants are residing in U.A.E
i.e. United Arab of Emirate, the proceedings initiated under Sections 82/83 of
CrPC, has attained its finality as the applicants have not sought any relief
against order passed under Sections 82/83 of CrPC. Therefore, the
applicants until and unless, not surrendered before the learned concerned
court, till then the applicants cannot seek any remedy.
27. On the above premise, it has been urged by the learned counsel for
the applicants that since the applicants have been completely failed to make
out any case for interference by the Hon'ble High Court in order to exercised
its power under section 528 of BNSS, therefore, the instant application being
without sans of merit is liable to be rejected.
28. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel
for opposite no.2 and the learned A.G.A. and also perused the material
available on record.

9
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
29. Two issues are up for consideration before this Court, the first is
whether the present criminal application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. filed by
the applications (through sister of applicant no.1), who are declared to be
proclaimed absconder is maintainable or not and second is that at this stage,
this Court while exercising its extra ordinary power can quash the impugned
charge-sheet, summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of the
aforementioned criminal case at the pretrial stage or not.

30. First Issue i.e. whether the present application under Section 528
B.N.S.S. filed by proclaimed absconders like the present applicants is
maintainable or not?
31. In Abhishek Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2022) 8
SCC 282, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“68. As regards the implication of proclamation having been
issued against the appellant, we have no hesitation in
making it clear that any person, who is declared as an
“absconder” and remains out of reach of the investigating
agency and thereby stands directly at conflict with law,
ordinarily, deserves no concession or indulgence……”
32. In Srikant Upadhyay (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for
opposite party no.2, the Apex Court in paragraph nos. 24 and 25 has held as
under:
“We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory
bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was
held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot
be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the
cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on
the facts  and circumstances of each case. While called upon
to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be
very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection
to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of
justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as
it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the
evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the
Court shall not pass an interim protection pending
consideration of such application as the Section is destined to
safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted
arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in
eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or
proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke
the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the

10
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme,
exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then,
person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding
is not entitled to such grant.
25. The factual narration made hereinbefore would reveal the
consistent disobedience of the appellants to comply with the
orders of the trial Court. They failed to appear before the Trial
Court after the receipt of the summons, and then after the
issuance of bailable warrants even when their co-accused,
after the issuance of bailable warrants, applied and obtained
regular bail. Though the appellants filed an application, which
they themselves described as “bail-cum-surrender
application” on 23.08.2022, they got it withdrawn on the fear
of being arrested. Even after the issuance of non- bailable
warrants on 03.11.2022 they did not care to appear before
the Trial Court and did not apply for regular bail after its
recalling. It is a fact that even after coming to know about the
proclamation under Section 482 Cr.PC., they did not take any
steps to challenge the same or to enter appearance before
the Trial Court to avert the consequences. Such conduct of
the appellants in the light of the aforesaid circumstances,
leaves us with no hesitation to hold that they are not entitled
to seek the benefit of pre-arrest bail.”
33. Similarly, in the case of Rakesh Mehta (Supra), which has also heavily
relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, the Uttarakhand
High Court in paragraph no. 39 has held as under:
“…..it is settled principle of law, as has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by different High Courts in
the catena of decisions that an accused, who is declared to
be a proclaimed offender cannot seek leave for quashing of
an FIR or any such proceeding arising thereof without
surrendering, the court will not exercise its extraordinary or
inherent jurisdiction in favour of an individual, who is
intentionally evading the process of law and is absconding,
or has been declared a proclaimed offender and such an
accused person cannot execute a power of attorney in
favour of a power of attorney holder to invoke the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
“As viewed from another angle, neither the lookout circular
nor the declaration of proclaimed offender put to challenge,
therefore, in such eventuality, the petition filed by Rakesh
Mehra through power of attorney holder cannot be held to
be maintainable.” 
34. It is also necessary for this Court to highlight the fact here that in the
present case also the applicants have not taken any steps to challenge the
non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. In
paragraph no.10 of the written submission filed on behalf of the applicants, it

11
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
has been stated that after lodging of the complaint regarding threat faced by
rd
the applicant no.1 dated 3 December, 2023 and before lodging of the
th
instant first information report dated 18 December, 2023, the applicant no.1
left the Indian territory and started residing in United Arab Emirates along
with his wife i.e. applicant no.2.
35. From the aforesaid statement it reveals that when the applicants left
the Indian territory and did not cooperate with the investigation, the
authorities have no other option but to pass an order for impounding the
passports of the applicants against which they filed civil writ petition before
this Court wherein no interim protection has been granted in their favour.
36. The applicants deliberately left India after making complaint by the
Bank and before lodging of the first information report against them, knowing
that they could be arrested in this case. This act of the applicants appears
that they are deliberately flouting the process of law of India. When the
passports of the applicants have been impounded by the Indian Government,
they approached the High Court challenging the said order of impounding of
passports and citing that impoundment as the reason, they contend in this
applicantion that they did not deliberately evade the due process of law.
37. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled principles of law, this Court
finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 that the present application filed on behalf of the
applicants (through sister of applicant no.2), who have been declared to be
proclaimed absconder is not maintainable.
38. Now this Court comes on the second issue whether this Court in
exercise of powers under Section 528 B.N.S.S. can quash the impugned
charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings of
aforementioned criminal case at the pretrial stage.
39. 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 applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed
questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen where
the allegation made in the FIR/complaint, even of they are taken at their
entirety, prima facie constitutes cognizable offence against the accused.

12
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
40. Position of law for invoking the jurisdiction of inherent power of High
Court has been settled by the Apex Court in following judgments:-
1. R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866;
2. Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451;
3. State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561;
4. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar, 1990 Supp SCC 686;
5. State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;
6. State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222;
7. B.S. Joshi Vs, State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675;
8. Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & another Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh & another, (2007) 13 SCC 165;
9. State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullaha Jilani & others, (2017) 2 SCC
779;
10. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others,
2021 AIR SC 1918.
41. Apart from the above, in Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. State of Jharkhand
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 685, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that
the Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under  Section 482  of Cr.P.C.
cannot conduct a mini trial or enter into appreciation of evidence of a
particular case. The following observations were made:
“This Court in catena of Judgments has consistently held
that at the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the
criminal proceedings, the court exercising extra-ordinary
jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini trial nor
enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case. The
correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of the
probable defence that the accused may raise to stave off
the prosecution and any such misadventure by the Courts
resulting in proceedings being quashed would be set aside.
"
42. In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh Etc. (Supra) relied
upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 the Apex Court in
paragraph nos. 4 and 4.1 has held as under:
“4. Having gone through the impugned common judgment
and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal
proceedings and discharging the accused, we are of the
opinion that the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in
quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the

13
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
limited powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or in exercise
of the powers under  Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order passed
by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt
with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was
conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering
the applications against the judgment and order passed by
the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the
cardinal principle of law, at the stage of  discharge and/or
quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the
powers under  Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required
to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common
impugned judgment and order has observed that the
charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the
stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are
required to prove the charges. The charges are required to
be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by
the prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore, the High
Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations
and the material collected during the course of the
investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage
of discharge and/or while exercising the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited
jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any
sufficient material is available to proceed further against the
accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”.
43. After considering the totality of facts of the case and keeping in mind
the position of law, there is no merit in the present application. Apart from that
there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is malafide, frivolous and
vexatious. The version as unfolded in the first information report is supported
by the witnesses including the informant and independent witnesses and also
by the police papers. It is also cropped up from the records that the public
money have been transferred in the accounts of the applicants and other
named accused persons, which needs a detail inquiry. The issue as to why
such public money has been transferred in their accounts can be more
appropriately examined during the course of trial. The interference at the
threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings of the present case cannot
be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of
cognizable offence.

14
N.A.528- 44666 of 2025
44. In the result, the prayer for quashing of entire proceeding, charge
sheet and cognizance order is refused. The second issue is also decided
against the applicants.
45. The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S is devoid of merits
and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Madan Pal Singh, J.)
Order Date:-21/07/2026
Sushil/-
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad