# Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 806
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-29
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 2818 of 2022
- **Bench:** Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brijesh-kumar-brijesh-kumar-kashyap-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54739
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

G.A., Anuj Kumar

Issue for consideration
Matters pertain to quashing of the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case u/s 406, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 504 IPC

Headnotes
Serious
allegation
against
the
applicantsinvolved in the sanction of loan amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- in the name of opposite party
no.2 -same was fraudulently withdrawn without
his knowledge on a loose cheque- where a
maximum limit of withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- is
provided-allegation
is
supported
by
the
statements of witnesses under Section 202
Cr.P.C-in a case involving offences for financial,
mercantile, partnership or similarly transactions-
serious allegation of fraud - certainly the
criminal proceeding can be launched and the
case should be tried-prima facie, the offence is
made
out-trial
is
required-Application
rejected. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

_Characters 0–39,997 of 40,031. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39997 for what follows._

806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the matter in Lok Adalat. Thus, let a
warning be issued to the concerned Judicial
Officer in this regard so that he may not to
repeat such occurrence in future.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 806
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2818 of 2022

Connected with
Application U/S 482 No. 4638 of 2021
And
Application U/S 482 No. 5376 of 2021

Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sanjay Kumar Rao, Ravi Misra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Anuj Kumar

Issue for consideration
Matters pertain to quashing of the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case u/s 406, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 504 IPC

Headnotes
Serious
allegation
against
the
applicantsinvolved in the sanction of loan amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- in the name of opposite party
no.2 -same was fraudulently withdrawn without
his knowledge on a loose cheque- where a
maximum limit of withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- is
provided-allegation
is
supported
by
the
statements of witnesses under Section 202
Cr.P.C-in a case involving offences for financial,
mercantile, partnership or similarly transactions-
serious allegation of fraud - certainly the
criminal proceeding can be launched and the
case should be tried-prima facie, the offence is
made
out-trial
is
required-Application
rejected. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. M/s Pepsi Food Ltd and another Vs. Special
Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749
2. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609
3. Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz
Investments and Holdings Limited and others,
(2019) 16 SCC 610.
4. Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. State of
Jharkhand and another, (2025) 1 SCC 392
5.
Parbatbhai
Aahir
alias
Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of
Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641
6. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan
Singh and others, (2023) 18 SCC 399

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code

List of Keywords
Forgery; prima facie, the offence is made out;
case involving offences for financial, mercantile,
partnership or similarly transactions where fraud
has been committed; proper appreciation of
evidence

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Vijai Vikram Singh,
Ripu Daman Shahi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.,Anuj Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Since the common question of facts
and law are involved in these three
applications, therefore, they are being heard
and decided by a common judgement.

2. Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No.2818 of 2022 has been filed
seeking quashing of the entire proceedings
of Complaint Case No.37720 of 2021,
Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
others, arising out of Crime No.0649 of
2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 504 IPC relating to Police Station
Ashiyana, District Lucknow as well as the
10 All. Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
807
summoning order dated 06.10.2021
and the non-bailable warrant issued on
30.11.2021 by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-5, Room No.29, Lucknow.

3. Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No.4638 of 2021 has been filed
seeking quashing of the entire proceedings
of Complaint Case No.37720 of 2021,
Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
others, arising out of Crime No.0649 of
2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 504 IPC relating to Police Station
Ashiyana, District Lucknow as well as the
summoning order dated 06.10.2021 and the
order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5,
Room No.29, Lucknow, by which the
protest petition ordered to be filed as
Complaint case.

4. Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No.5376 of 2021 has been filed
seeking quashing of the entire proceedings
of Complaint Case No.37720 of 2021,
Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
others, arising out of Crime No.0649 of
2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 504 IPC relating to Police Station
Ashiyana, District Lucknow as well as the
summoning order dated 06.10.2021 and the
non-bailable warrant issued on 30.11.2021
by
the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate-5, Room No.29, Lucknow.

5. Brief facts giving rise to the
present case are that an FIR at Case Crime
No.0649 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 504 IPC was dogged by
opposite party no.2 on 12.09.2019 with the
allegation that Abhay Kumar, who was the
Branch Manager of the Union Bank of
India, Branch M-1A, Sector-L, Ashiyana,
Kanpur Road, Lucknow, had committed
fraud with him. It is stated in the FIR that
opposite party no.2 is less educated and a
labourer, who was persuaded by the Branch
Manager to open an account in his branch
and also asked his identity card, registered
deed of house and the electricity bill. On
the persuasion made by Abhay Kumar,
opposite party no.2 went to the cabin of the
Branch Manager along with all relevant
papers and his signature was obtained by
the employee of the bank on some blank
papers and on a blank cheque. Abhay
Kumar told opposite party no.2 that
account will be opened in his name and he
may operate the same. Thereafter, opposite
party no.2 used to operate the account, but
on 27.03.2017 he came to know that his
account has been declared as NonPerforming Asset (NPA) and then he made
contact with the branch and the newly
appointed Branch Manager, Sri Himanshu
Nigam, who told him that since the loan
amount taken by him could not be repayed, therefore, the account has been
declared as NPA. Thereafter, opposite party
no.2 made contact with Abhay Kumar, who
abused opposite party no.2 and told him
that he had left the branch, therefore, he
had no concern. The FIR further mentions
that opposite party no.2 was defrauded by
Abhay Kumar and Rs.8,00,000/- was taken
as loan and the same was also withdrawn
by him by using fraudulent means with the
connivance of other bank officials.

6.
The
police
recorded
the
statements of the complainant and other
witnesses and thereafter final report was
submitted before the supervising officer on
27.06.2020. However, the supervising
officer withheld the final report and raised
an objection that whether there is any rule
for withdrawing the entire loan amount
through one cheque. The supervising
officer also observed that since there was a
CD,
wherein
conversation
between
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opposite party no.2 and Abhay Kumar was
available, therefore, it was to be inquired
into. On the objection raised by the
supervising officer, the final report was
cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner of
Police vide order dated 16.09.2020 and
ordered for re-investigation. In pursuance
of the aforesaid direction, further/additional
statement of opposite party no.2 was
recorded,
wherein
he
stated
that
Rs.8,00,000/- of the loan amount was
withdrawn through one cheque and the
same was utilised by Abhay Kumar in
connivance
with the Deputy
Branch
Manager, Loan Manager, Head Cashier,
Peon
and
others.
However,
the
Investigating Officer has again filed final
report on 19.02.2021 holding all the
charges levelled against the applicants were
not corroborated from the documents.

7.
Feeling
aggrieved
by
the
aforesaid action
of
the
Investigating
Officer, opposite party no.2 filed a protest
petition, which was accepted by the
Magistrate concerned and a direction was
issued to register the protest petition as
complaint vide order dated 08.07.2021 and
the case was fixed for recording the
statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, statement of opposite party no.2
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded,
wherein he has named Abhay Kumar, the
then Branch Manager, Rajesh Kumar,
Deputy Branch Manager, Loan Manager,
Ayushi Mishra, Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh
Kumar Kashyap, Peon and made statement
that the bank officials and the employees
were involved in fraudulent activities and
without his knowledge, the loan amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- was sanctioned and the same
was withdrawn by Sri Abhay Kumar in
connivance with the other officials of the
bank. Statements of Nitin Pachauri and
Bhupendra Singh were also recorded under
Section 202 Cr.P.C., who also supported
the statement of opposite party no.2
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. After
going through the evidences and the
statements recorded under Section 200 and
202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate concerned
issued summons against the applicants,
which are under challenge.

Submissions
on
behalf
of
applicant-Ayushi Mishra in Application
U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.4638 of 2021

8. Sri Rajiv Kumar Bajpai, learned
counsel appearing for the applicant has
submitted that the FIR was lodged only
against Abhay Kumar, the then Branch
Manager and there is no allegation against
the applicant in the FIR. He has further
submitted that twice final reports were
submitted in the case, but on the protest
made by opposite party no.2, the applicant
has been summoned. There is inordinate
delay of five years in lodging the FIR as the
incident is alleged to have been occurred in
the year 2014, whereas the FIR has been
lodged in 2019. Further submission is that
loan was sanctioned after following the due
procedure
and
the
loan
amount
of
Rs.8,00,000/- was credited in the account
of opposite party no.2 and, thereafter, the
said amount was withdrawn by opposite
party no.2 through a cheque duly signed by
him. He has also submitted that even in the
statement of opposite party no.2 recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no
allegation against the applicant and she has
been summoned only on the statements
recorded under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. which are not corroborated by the
evidence on record. Further submission is
that from perusal of the evidence on record,
it is apparent that applicant is not
instrumental in any manner in withdrawing
the loan amount, as alleged, as she is only
10 All. Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
809
the sanctioning authority and moreover
only on the basis of the statements recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the
trial court cannot issue summons against
the applicant ignoring the material fact that
twice final reports were submitted in the
case.

Submissions
on
behalf
of
applicant-Rajesh Kumar in Application
U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.5376 of 2021

9. Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel
appearing for the applicant has submitted
that applicant has not been named in the
FIR and twice final reports were submitted
in this case. He has further invited the
attention of the Court towards the statement
of opposite party no.2 recorded under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. and has submitted that
there is statement of facts recorded by
opposite party no.2 wherein he has
mentioned that Ayushi Mishra, Loan
Manager, Rajesh Kumar, Deputy Branch
Manager, Puttilal Verma, Head Cashier and
Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap,
Class-IV employee were present in the
cabin of Abhay Kumar, the then Branch
Manager and the Branch Manager told him
that a letter will be sent to his house; thus, a
bare perusal of the statement recorded
under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it appears that
there is no role of the applicant in
committing the alleged fraud. Further
submission is that applicant has been
falsely implicated in the case and even if he
was present in the cabin of the Branch
Manager, it does not mean that he was
instrumental in committing the fraud.
Counsel
for
the
applicant
has
also
submitted
that
the
loan
amount
of
Rs.8,00,000/- was credited in the account
of opposites party no.2 after following due
procedure and the same was withdrawn by
opposite party no.2 on his signature,
therefore, presumption cannot be drawn
that
applicant
was
involved
in
the
commission of crime.

Submissions
on
behalf
of
applicant-Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh
Kumar Kashyap in Application U/s 482
Cr.P.C. No.2818 of 2022

10. Sri Sanjay Kumar Rao, learned
counsel appearing for the applicant has
submitted that applicant is a Class-IV
employee and he has no role in the sanction
of loan and in case he was present in the
cabin of the Branch Manager, it does not
mean that he had committed any fraud.
Further submission is that criminal case
should not be filed by a person in so casual
manner and launching of criminal case is a
serious issue, which is deprecated by the
Honble Supreme Court in many cases
viz. M/s Pepsi Food Ltd and another Vs.
Special Judicial Magistrate and others
(1998) 5 SCC 749, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4
SCC 609 and Birla Corporation Limited
Vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings
Limited and others, (2019) 16 SCC 610.

11. In support of his contention,
counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance
upon
paragraph-28
of
the
judgement rendered in the case of M/s
Pepsi Foods Limited (supra), which is
quoted below:-

 28. Summoning of an accused
in a criminal case is a serious matter.
Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a
matter of course. It is not that the
complainant has to bring only two
witnesses to support his allegations in the
complaint to have the criminal law set into
motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that he
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has applied his mind to the facts of the case
and the law applicable thereto. He has to
examine the nature of allegations made in
the complaint and the evidence both oral
and documentary in support thereof and
would that be sufficient for the complainant
to succeed in bringing charge home to the
accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a
silent spectator at the time of recording of
preliminary evidence before summoning of
the accused. The Magistrate has to
carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on
record and may even himself put questions
to the complainant and his witnesses to
elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of
the allegations or otherwise and then
examine if any offence is prima facie
committed by all or any of the accused.

12. Counsel for the applicant has
also placed reliance upon paragraphs 51
and 52 of the judgement rendered in the
case of Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), which
are quoted below:-

 51. On the other hand, Section
204 of the Code deals with the issue of
process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. This
section relates to commencement of a
criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate
taking cognizance of a case (it may be the
Magistrate receiving the complaint or to
whom it has been transferred under Section
192), upon a consideration of the materials
before him (i.e. the complaint, examination
of the complainant and his witnesses, if
present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks
that there is a prima facie case for
proceeding in respect of an offence, he
shall issue process against the accused.

 52. A wide discretion has been
given as to grant or refusal of process and
it must be judicially exercised. A person
ought not to be dragged into court merely
because a complaint has been filed. If a
prima facie case has been made out, the
Magistrate ought to issue process and it
cannot be refused merely because he thinks
that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.

13.
Further,
counsel
for
the
applicant
has
placed
reliance
upon
paragraph-33 of the judgement rendered in
the case of Birla Corporation Limited
(supra), which is quoted below:-

 33. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that he
has applied his mind to the facts of the case
and the law applicable thereto. The
application of mind has to be indicated by
disclosure of mind on the satisfaction.
Considering the duties on the part of the
Magistrate for issuance of summons to
accused in a complaint case and that there
must be sufficient indication as to the
application of mind and observing that the
Magistrate is not to act as a post office in
taking cognizance of the complaint, in
Mehmood Ul Rehman, this Court held as
under:-

 22. .the Code of Criminal
Procedure requires speaking order to be
passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. when the
complaint is dismissed and that too the
reasons need to be stated only briefly. In
other words, the Magistrate is not to act as
a post office in taking cognizance of each
and every complaint filed before him and
issue process as a matter of course. There
must be sufficient indication in the order
passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied
that the allegations in the complaint
constitute an offence and when considered
along with the statements recorded and the
result of inquiry or report of investigation
10 All. Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
811
under Section 202 Cr.P.C., if any, the
accused is answerable before the criminal
court, there is ground for proceeding
against the accused under Section 204
Cr.P.C., by issuing process for appearance.
The
application
of
mind
is
best
demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the
satisfaction. If there is no such indication
in a case where the Magistrate proceeds
under Sections 190/204 Cr.P.C., the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. is bound
to invoke its inherent power in order to
prevent abuse of the power of the criminal
court. To be called to appear before the
criminal court as an accused is serious
matter affecting ones dignity, self-respect
and image in society. Hence, the process of
criminal court shall not be made a weapon
of harassment.

14. Counsel for the applicant has
vehemently argued that the Magistrate
while summoning the applicant has to see
that he has applied his mind to the facts of
the case and the law applicable. The
disclosure of mind and satisfaction should
be based on sufficient evidence, which is
lacking in the present case.

Submissions made on behalf of
opposite party no.2

15. Replying the submissions made
on behalf of all the applicants, Sri Sudeep
Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Anuj Kumar, appearing for opposite
party no.2 has submitted that on the
objection raised by the supervising officer,
the final report was cancelled by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police vide order
dated 16.09.2020 and ordered for reinvestigation. In pursuance of the aforesaid
direction, further/ additional statement
(Majid Bayaan) of opposite party no.2 was
recorded, in which he stated before the
Investigating Officer that Abhay Kumar,
the then Branch Manager persuaded him to
open an account and he asked opposite
party no.2 to come to his bank along with
identity card, electricity bill and the
registered deed of house on 24.01.2014.
Again he was called by Abhay Kumar on
01.03.2014 and when he went to his cabin,
he saw that many bank officials and
employees of the bank were sitting in his
cabin. Signature of opposite party no.2 was
obtained on a blank paper as well as on
withdrawal form and Abhay Kumar told
him that he could do the business of
catering after loan was sanctioned. The
amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was withdrawn by
Abhay Kumar, the then Branch Manager
himself and the same was utilized by the
other bank officials viz. Deputy Branch
Manager, Loan Manager, Head Cashier and
Peon. However, the Investigating Officer
has again filed final report on 19.02.2021
stating all the charges levelled against the
applicants were not corroborated from the
documents. Thereafter, protest petition was
filed by opposite party no.2 and the trial
court has treated the same as complaint and
the case was fixed for recording the
statement of opposite party no.2. The
statement recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C. goes to indicates that opposite party
no.2 has levelled specific allegation against
all the applicants and he has categorically
stated before the trial court that all the
applicants were present in the cabin of the
then Branch Manager and he was told by
the Branch Manager that his account will
be opened within 3-4 days. On 01.03.2014,
opposite party no.2 was again called by
Abhay Kumar and he deposited Rs.40,000/-
and Rs.1,500/- in the account. In the cabin,
Ayushi Mishra, Loan Manager, Rajesh
Kumar, Deputy Branch Manager, Puttilal
Verma, Head Cashier and Brijesh Kumar
@ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap, Peon were
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present and no paper was handed over to
opposite party no.2 and later on he came to
know
that
Rs.8,00,000/-
loan
was
sanctioned to him and the entire amount
was
withdrawn
on
01.03.2014
itself
through one cheque though he was not
given any document relating to sanction of
loan. Abhay Kumar told him that he had
withdrawn the loan amount and the same
will be returned to him later on.

16. Counsel for opposite party no.2
has further made submission that Sri Abhay
Kumar, the then Branch Manager got
inspected the property by the approved
valuer on 23.01.2014, who submitted the
valuation
certificate
on
24.01.2014
regarding the property of opposite party
no.2. Abhay Kumar in collusion with the
other applicants and the bank staff called
opposite party no.2 on 01.03.2014 and took
his signature on few blank papers as well as
on withdrawal forms. Abhay Kumar
informed that after completing the loan
formalities of Rs.8,00,000/-, bank would
send sanction letter. Since opposite party
no.2 did not get any sanction latter, he met
the then Branch Manager, who told him
that money was utilized by him and the
same would be paid to him after some time.
The said conversation was recorded in CD
by opposite party no.2.

17. Counsel for opposite party no.2
has further invited the attention of the
Court towards Page Nos.133, 134, 135,
137, 140, 141 (Annexure CA-12) of the
counter affidavit filed by him and has
submitted that application dated 01.03.2014
for grant of loan of Rs.8,00,000/- was
sanctioned to opposite party no.2 by the
bank,
however,
no
signature
of
borrower/guarantor/Branch
Manager
is
available on the sanction letter, which is
evident at Page No.140 of the counter
affidavit filed by opposite party no.2.
Opposite
party
no.2
also
obtained
information under Right to Information Act
from the bank, which is at Page No.131 of
the counter affidavit filed by opposite party
no.2, in which it has been pointed out that
loan is always disbursed after signing of
sanction letter and loan related documents
by borrower, but in the present case, no
such signature is available on the sanction
letter dated 01.03.2014, which is annexed
as CA-12 to the counter affidavit filed by
opposite party no.2 and there is no
signature of borrower/guarantor on it.

18. Counsel for opposite party no.2
has further invited the attention of the
Court towards Page No.142 (Annexure
CA-13) of the counter affidavit, which is a
letter dated 28.02.2014 alleged to be
written by opposite party no.2 for issuance
of a loose cheque to him, pursuant to
which, a loose cheque has been issued,
which is at Page No.143 of the counter
affidavit. The said cheque indicates that a
maximum limit of Rs.25,000/- can be
withdrawn, but a bare perusal of the said
cheque indicates that Rs.8,00,000/- has
been withdrawn in utter violation of the
norms of the bank. He has further invited
the attention of the Court towards the
answers given to the queries made through
Right to Information Act, wherein at Point
No.7, it is mentioned that withdrawal
form on which specifically mentioned up to
Rs.25,000/- is allowed for that amount
only. Further attention of the Court has
been drawn towards the reply given to
Point No.12, wherein it is mentioned by the
bank that cash withdrawal is not allowed
from loan account. From the aforesaid
document, it is abundantly clear that on the
loose
cheque,
maximum
limit
of
withdrawal is of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.8,00,000/-
was withdrawn, which was not at all
10 All. Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
813
possible for opposite party no.2 to
withdraw such amount and the fraudulent
activity has been done by the applicants,
who were in connivance with each other.

19. Learned Senior Counsel for
opposite party no.2 has further submitted
that no legal grounds have been taken by
the applicants counsel. Statements of
Nitin Pachauri and Bhupendra Singh were
recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and
they had also supported the prosecution
case. He has further submitted that after
going through the record and the statements
recorded under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. the Magistrate issued summons,
which are based on evidence on record.
Once the statements under Sections 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. are recorded and the same
disclose the commission of an offence, the
trial court was right in issuing the summons
and there is no illegality or infirmity in the
summons, rather it have been issued after
application of mind. Further submission is
that once the offence is disclosed, this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may not
interfere in the summons issued and cannot
do mini trial and lead evidences and the
trial is the only method, by which the truth
can come out.

20. To buttress his argument,
counsel for opposite party no.2 has placed
reliance upon the judgement of the
Honble Supreme Court rendered in the
case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs.
State of Jharkhand and another, (2025) 1
SCC 392, particularly on paragraphs 17,
18, 19 and 21, which read as under:-

 17. This Court in a series of
judgements has held that while exercising
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High
Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial.
A profitable reference can be made to the
judgment in the case of CBI vs Aryan Singh
(2023 SCC Online SC 379). Relevant
paragraph from the judgment is extracted
here under:

 "6. . 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.

 7. . 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".

 18. In the instant case, the High
Court has delved into an aspect which was
absolutely not warranted and has exceeded
its jurisdiction. The aspect about complicity
of a person who was involved in the forgery
is a disputed question of fact and the same
will have to be addressed after a proper
appreciation of evidence which can be
done only during trial and not at such a
nascent stage when summons is served. The
Magistrate while considering the fact that
the Respondent No.2 -Santosh Kumar
Choudha, was a beneficiary and after
considering the scope of summons order
had rightly observed that a prima facie
case is made out and the same required an
adjudication through a trial.

 19. The High Court ought to have
considered the complicity of the accused in
case of forgery, which will have to be
addressed after a proper appreciation of
evidence and such appreciation of evidence
814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
can be done only by undertaking the initial
process i.e. by conducting the trial on the
aspect of forgery. The summons order was
only at an initial stage and at such a
nascent stage, the High Court ought not to
have recorded the finding on the aspect of
forgery.

 21. Accordingly, in our opinion,
the present case warrants interference by
this Court, and we do so. We hereby quash
and set aside the Judgments passed by the
High Court of Jharkhand and remand back
the matter before the learned Judicial
Magistrate for proceeding with the trial in
accordance with law. The accused persons
are to face trial for offences in which they
are charge sheeted. However, it is observed
that all the contentions and defences, which
are available to the respective parties are
kept open, to be considered by the learned
Trial Court during the trial.

21. Counsel for opposite party no.2
has further placed reliance upon the
judgement of the Honble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir
alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur
and others Vs. State of Gujarat and
another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, particularly on
paragraphs 13 and 14, which read as
under:-

 13. In State of Maharashtra v
Vikram Anantrai Doshi, a Bench of two
learned Judges of this Court explained the
earlier decisions and the principles which
must govern in deciding whether a criminal
proceeding involving anon-compoundable
offence should be quashed. In that case, the
respondents were alleged to have obtained
Letters of Credit from a bank in favour
offictitious
entities.
The
charge-sheet
involved offences under Sections 406,420,
467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B
of the Penal Code. Bogus beneficiary
companies were alleged to have got them
discounted by attaching fabricated bills.
Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned
Chief Justice then was) emphasised that the
case involved an allegation of forgery;
hence the court was not dealing with a
simple case where the accused had
borrowed money from a bank, to divert it
elsewhere. The court held that the
manner in which Letters of Credit were
issued and funds were siphoned off had a
foundation in criminal law:

 26... availing of money from a
nationalized bank in the manner,as alleged
by the investigating agency, vividly exposits
fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial
fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in
the charge-sheet cannot be put in the
compartment of an individual or personal
wrong. It is a social wrong and it has
immense societal impact. It is an accepted
principle of handling of finance that
whenever there is
manipulation
and
cleverly conceived contrivance to avail of
these kind of benefits it cannot be regarded
as a case having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly of civil character. The
ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a
hazard in the financial interest of the
society. The gravity of the offence creates a
dent in the economic spine of the nation.

 The judgment of the High Court
quashing the criminal proceedings was
hence set aside by this Court.

 14. The same principle was
followed in Central Bureau of Investigation
v Maninder Singh by a bench of two
learned Judges of this Court. In that case,
the High Court had, in the exercise of its
inherent power under Section 482 quashed
proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468
10 All. Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
815
and 471 read with Section 120-B of the
Penal Code. While allowing the appeal
filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation
Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned
Chief Justice then was) observed that the
case involved allegations of forgery of
documents to embezzle the funds of the
bank. In such a situation, the fact that the
dispute had been settled with the bank
would not justify a recourse to the power
under Section 482:

 ...In economic offences Court
must not only keep in view that money has
been paid to the bank which has been
defrauded but also the society at large. It is
not a case of simple assault or a theft of a
trivial amount; but the offence with which
we are concerned is well planned and was
committed with a deliberate design with an
eye of personal profit regardless of
consequence to the society at large. To
quash the proceeding merely on the ground
that the accused has settled the amount
with the bank would be a misplaced
sympathy. If the prosecution against the
economic offenders are not allowed to
continue,
the
entire
community
is
aggrieved."

22. Counsel for opposite party no.2
has
made
emphasis
particularly
on
paragraphs 16.3, 16.4, 16.8, 16.9 and 16.10,
which are extracted herein below:-

 16. The broad principles which
emerge from the precedents on the
subject,may be summarised in the following
propositions:-

 ...

 16.3. In forming an opinion
whether
a
criminal
proceeding
or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High
Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the
inherent power;

 16.4. While the inherent power of
the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
an abuse of the process of any court.

 ..
 16.8. Criminal cases involving
offences
which
arise
from
commercial,financial,
mercantile,
partnership or similar transactions with an
essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties
have settled the dispute;

 16.9. In such a case, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceeding if
in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would cause oppression and
prejudice; and

 16.10. There is yet an exception
to the principle set out in propositions (viii)
and(ix) above. Economic offences involving
the financial and economic well-being of
the state have implications which lie
beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in an activity
akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the
act complained of upon the financial or
economic system will weigh in the
balance.

23. Lastly, counsel for opposite
party no.2 while replying the submission
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made by the applicants that though they
have been exonerated by the police and
twice final reports were submitted, but only
on the basis of the statements recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., order
for registration of complaint case and
issuing summons against the applicants is
erroneous, has submitted that evidence
collected by the police during investigation
after lodging the FIR, has no relevance
once the case is treated as complaint case
after rejecting the final reports.

24. In support of his contention, he
has placed reliance upon the judgement of
the Honble Supreme Court rendered in
the case of Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab
and others, (2020) 3 SCC 317. Paragraphs
10 and 11 of the said judgement read as
under:-

 10. We do not agree with the
submissions made on behalf of Respondent
Nos.1 to 3. The conclusion of the High
Court to quash the criminal proceedings is
on the basis of its assessment of the
statements recorded under Section 161
CrPC. Statements of witnesses recorded
under Section 161 CrPC being wholly
inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken
into consideration by the Court, while
adjudicating a petition filed under Section
482 CrPC (Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P.
and another (2007) 7 SCC 378].

 11. Moreover, the High Court
was aware that one of the witnesses
mentioned that the deceased informed him
about the harassment meted out by
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 which she was not
able to bear and hence wanted to commit
suicide. The High Court committed an
error in quashing criminal proceedings by
assessing the statements under Section 161
Cr. P.C.
25. I heard learned counsel for the
applicants, learned AGA-I as well as
learned
Senior
Counsel
for
the
complainant-opposite
party
no.2
and
perused the record.

26. After going through the record
as well as the statements recorded under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it is evident
that there is serious a allegation by opposite
party no.2 against the applicants that they
were involved in the sanction of loan
amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in the name of
opposite party no.2 and thereafter the same
was fraudulently withdrawn without his
knowledge on a loose cheque, where a
maximum
limit
of
withdrawal
of
Rs.25,000/- is provided. The allegation is
also supported by the statements of two
witnesses
viz.
Nitin
Pachauri
and
Bhupendra Singh recorded under Section
202 Cr.P.C. It is well settled law that in a
case involving offences for financial,
mercantile,
partnership
or
similarly
transactions
where
fraud
has
been
committed, the Court has to see that in case
serious allegation of fraud is levelled, then
certainly the criminal proceeding can be
launched and the case should be tried. The
Court has to consider the complicity of the
accused in case of forgery, which can be
done after proper appreciation of evidence
and such appreciation of evidence can be
done only by undertaking the initial
process, for which certainly the trial is
required. This Court while exercising the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. cannot give any finding whether
the
offence
was
committed
by
the
applicants or not, but certainly the Court
has to see the evidences on record and the
statements recorded under Sections 200 and
202 Cr.P.C. After going through the
statements recorded under Sections 200 and
202 Cr.P.C., this Court finds that prima
10 All. Bhavesh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
817
facie, the offence is made out,
rather the allegations are specific against
the applicants, for which certainly the trial
is required.
27. In the subject matter of forgery,
the law is settled by the Supreme Court in
the case of Dharambeer Kumar Singh
(supra), wherein it is provided that
complicity of the accused in case of forgery
will have to be addressed only after a
proper appreciation of evidence and such
appreciation of evidence can be done only
by
undertaking
the
initial
process.
Therefore, trial is the only process, by
which the evidence can be adduced and the
truth can be found out.
28. Supreme Court in the case of
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan
Singh and others, (2023) 18 SCC 399 has
categorically 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 High Court
is not required to conduct the mini trial and
adduce evidence on record as it 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. From a bare perusal of
the statements recorded under Sections 200
and 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie the offence is
made out as there is sufficient material
available on record.
29. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, this Court does not find any
merit in the case.

30. All the three applications are
accordingly rejected.

31. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 817
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 15302 of 2018

Bhavesh Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ashish Upadhyay, Jitendra Kumar, Vinod
Kumar Upadhyay

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, G.A., Sanjay Kumar
Gupta

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of summoning order
arising out of Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in
respect of vague allegations.

Headnotes
Matrimonial Dispute-Indian Penal Codesec. 498-A, sec 323, 506-Applicant No.1-
(husband) has died during pendency of present
case--rule of law requires that accused is visited
with specific allegations in criminal prosecutionspecific allegations require that date, time and
place of alleged offence is specified- general,
vague and omnibus allegations are made
against applicant Nos.2 to 6 in respect of an
offence under Section 498-A IPC-summoning
order and criminal proceedings are not tenableno allegation of any threatening-summoning
order
and
criminal
proceedings
quashed.
Application partly allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2002) 5 SCC 177
2. Application U/S 482 No.- 6782 of 2023 (Viri
Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and
another); 2025:AHC:147074
3. State of Haryana Vs.