HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37347 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Shivendra Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the charge-sheet dated 12.08.2024 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 04.09.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No.280 of 2025 (State vs. Dilip Kumar Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.0149 of 2024, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and sections 6/10 of U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, P.S. Bansdeeh Road, District- Ballia, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Ballia. 3. It is the case of applicant that applicant runs a coaching center at Ballia for B.Ed. entrance examination and his cousin brother was also appearing for Joint B.Ed. entrance exam (2024-26) and after receiving a news of mass cheating, which was going at Ram Dahin Singh Inter College Amgha, Ballia, i.e., examination center of opposite party no.2, the applicant went to the center for apprising the opposite party no.2 about the same, but no heed has been paid whereas it is the applicant who have been implicated in Case Crime No.149 of 2024 with specific allegation that applicant was impersonating some another person and was appearing in the examination. 4. The arguments so raised by learned counsel for applicant that without having any corroborated evidences in shape of handwriting expert report and without disclosing the fact that how the applicant entered into the examination center, since at the time of entrance there is specific provision Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Kumar, Saurabh Rai, Shivendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dilip Kumar Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) mentioned by learned counsel for applicant that after due verification of identity which will be matched with the photographs no person will be permitted to enter into the examination center and as such the implication of applicant only mere statement recorded by invigilator and in absence of any CCTV footage, implication of applicant is highly illegal. It is also submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is an aspirant of his own career and implication in the instant case will ruin the entire career of the applicant. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. however oppose the prayer as made in the application, but at the time of specific query made before him that whether any specimen signature made by the applicant has been tallied with the signature available of the actual person against whom the admit card has been issued or any other specific evidence available against the applicant for implicating him in Case Crime No.149 of 2024 in pursuance to sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and sections 6/10 of U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998. It is submitted by learned A.G.A. that no such evidences has ever been collected or intended to be sought by concerned investigating officer. 6. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, the grounds taken up by learned counsel for applicant while preferring the instant application that the procedure of examination is crystal clear that no person other than the admit card holder is entitled to enter in the premises of examination center after due verification of the same. Once it is also apparent from the records that the arrest of applicant was made from outside of the examination center, the possibility of the story as narrated through F.I.R. is not co-relating with the incident. 7. Would it have been the case that the applicant has been apprehended at the time of putting his signature and at the time of tally of the photo available over the admit card with recognition of the applicant, the case would have been otherwise for implicating applicant in Case Crime No.149 of 2024. 8. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, once the examination has already been over, it is the applicant who have been shown as arrested outside of the examination center is not relating to the offence as committed and narrated through F.I.R. So far as the investigation is concerned, which NA528 No. 37347 of 2025 2 culminated into preferring charge-sheet, is also lacking cogent reasons and credible evidences for implicating the applicant in Case Crime No.149 of 2024. At the time of taking cognizance of offence, these all aspects has never been discussed or looked into by learned court concerned. Implication of young aspirants, who are under preparation for the recruitment examinations of Government services will be on the strict proof of evidence, otherwise the same shall be in shape of ruining the entire career as mentioned by learned counsel for applicant. 9. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceedings of Case No.280 of 2025 (State vs. Dilip Kumar Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.0149 of 2024, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and sections 6/10 of U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, P.S. Bansdeeh Road, District- Ballia, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Ballia, including charge-sheet dated 12.08.2024 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 04.09.2024, are hereby quashed. 10. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. September 24, 2025 Saif NA528 No. 37347 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad