Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16397 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3136 of 2025 Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiva Priya Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed seeking the quashing of the charge sheet dated 24.09.2023 and the cognizance order dated 18.11.2023, passed in Case No. 31602 of 2023, State v. Pawan Chauhan, arising out of Case Crime No. 25 of 2023, under Sections 406, 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC, and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The proceedings are pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)-I, Gyanpur, District S.R. Nagar (Bhadohi). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has not been named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to him in the alleged offense during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that no incriminating material was recovered from the applicant's premises during the police raid. The applicant's implication is solely based on the statement of the co- accused, Pawan Kumar Sharma, and apart from this statement, no other material evidence has been collected to substantiate the allegations against him. It is argued that the applicant is merely a stamp manufacturing vendor in Jaunpur and has no involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposes the application, stating that the co-accused has specifically named the applicant, alleging that he was engaged in the fabrication of fake thumb impressions of individuals, which were subsequently used to facilitate fraudulent activities. In the present case, the applicant is alleged to have created a fake thumb impression of one Govind Lal Maurya. It is further contended that there exist specific allegations against the applicant, and based on the statement of the co-accused, a prima facie case is made out, justifying the continuation of the proceedings. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and having perused the materials available on record, it is evident that the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant primarily based on the statement of the co-accused coupled with other evidences of incriminating nature forming part of the case diaries, which implicates the applicant in the commission of the alleged offense. At this stage, the scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited. It is a settled legal principle that while exercising inherent jurisdiction, this Court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence but only to assess whether a prima facie case exists warranting the continuance of proceedings. In the present case, the statement of the co-accused provides sufficient grounds to establish a prima facie case against the applicant, which cannot be disregarded at this stage. 6. The grounds raised by the applicant's counsel, particularly regarding the absence of independent evidence and the lack of direct attribution of a role to the applicant in the FIR, do not, at this preliminary stage, justify the quashing of the charge sheet or the cognizance order. The applicant is at liberty to raise these contentions during the trial, where the evidence will be tested on its merits. 7. In view of the above discussion, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Anil K. Sharma Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad