Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41201 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5651 of 2025 Applicant :- Devraj Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Bhupendra Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Hans Raj Verma, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 08.11.2017, the summoning order dated 06.08.2018 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.398 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 547 of 2017, under Sections 420 I.P.C. at Police Station- Barasagvar, District- Unnao. 3. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No.2 (Sub-Inspector) on 0611.2017 stating that the applicant was driving an Ambulance in which nine persons were travelling. Although it was written in the vehicle that it was an Ambulance, the seating arrangement inside it was like a taxi and it was not an Ambulance. The applicant was running a commercial vehicle by writing 'Ambulance' on it and putting a Hooter on it. 4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet on 08.11.2017 for commission of offence under Section 420 IPC and the trial Court had taken cognizance of the offence on 06.08.2018. 5. Assailing validity of the charge-sheet and summoning order, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR does not disclose as to whether the applicant is the owner or the driver of the vehicle in question and the charge-sheet has been submitted without any evidence having been collected to support the allegations. 6. A bare perusal of the FIR discloses that it is categorically mentioned that the applicant was driving the vehicle and, therefore, the submission that the FIR does not specify whether the applicant was the owner of the vehicle or driving the vehicle, is misconceived. 7. So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, upon a query made by the Court, learned counsel for the applicant himself stated that the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of some police personnel. Therefore, the submission that the Investigating Officer has not collected any evidence, is also not correct even as per the statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant himself. 8. In absence of any ground having been made for quashing the charge-sheet and proceedings, there is no reason to make any interference in the charge-sheet and the summoning order passed by the trial Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this court. 9. The application is accordingly, dismissed. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 18.7.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench