Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75117 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2915 of 2025 Applicant :- Kumar Kartikey Alias Ganesh Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harshit Gupta,Pranay Kumar,Ramanand Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking following relief:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the application and quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no.1496/9/2024 also 49/XI/2023, under Section 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Jaspura, District Banda, pending before the Ld. Civil Judge Junior Division / Fast Track Court 1st, District Banda, including the summoning order dated 04.09.2024, and / or pass such other and further order as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case else, the applicants will suffer a grave and irreparable loss and injury. " 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against applicant. The opposite party no.2 has invested his amount in "Togo Swasthya Evam Jan Kalyan Sansthan" and applicant was merely working as agent. Earlier a notice was also issued by the opposite party no.2 to the said company but thereafter no suit for recovery was filed. It is further submitted that in regard to several other complaints against the said company, a notice has already been issued by Securities and Exchange Board of India. Further, the opposite party no.2 has alternate remedy under the provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposits Act, 2019. It was submitted that the impugned criminal proceedings are barred under Section 8 of the aforesaid Act. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that no case is made out and impugned criminal proceedings are barred by law and thus the same are liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has made clear allegations that applicant has induced the complainant to invest by saying that he would provide more interest and he would also provide guarantee against deposits and consequently the complainant has invested the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which was given to the applicant but the same was not returned back. It was stated that similar statements have been made by other affected persons, who have also made investments and lost their deposits. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 7. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the opposite no.2 has lodged impugned complaint alleging that in the year 2020, the applicant has told there was a company which provides good interest and if any investment is made, the invested amount would multiply to one and half times within a period of three years. On such promise of the applicant, the complainant has given an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the applicant. Several other persons have also made similar investments. It was alleged that neither any amount nor interest was provided to complainant or other affected persons nor their funds were returned back. The complainant as well as other victims have made specific allegation against the applicant. The above referred the provisions of Banning of Unregulated Deposits Act, 2019 would not be a bar to continue the impugned proceedings in view of specific allegations made against the applicant. The matter involves various questions of fact which cannot be decided or adjudicated in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Hence, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 I.A.Siddiqui Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad