Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18941 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3758 of 2025 Applicant :- Najmuddin Alias Munna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.04.2024, the cognizance order dated 14.06.2024, as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 6100 of 2024, State v. Mukhtar Ahmad and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 0164 of 2024, registered under Sections 420, 379, 411, 120B, and 34 of IPC, and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act at Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the initial allegation pertained solely to the overloading of mines and minerals, which was later found to be baseless upon the production of relevant documents. However, despite the absence of any original allegation under Sections 420 and 379 IPC, the investigating officer has proceeded to file a charge sheet under Sections 420, 379, 211, and 120B IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 3/57 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Concession Rules, 2021. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to collect any cogent or admissible evidence to substantiate the charges, rendering the charge sheet legally untenable. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the applicant amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposes the application and submits that the applicant is alleged to have procured mines and minerals from a crusher that was found to be non-operational at the time of inspection. It is further submitted that the owner of the said crusher allegedly transferred its operation to the applicant, thereby establishing his involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. Based on the evidence collected during the investigation, the prosecution asserts that the allegations of theft, cheating, and criminal conspiracy are found and duly supported by the material on record. 5. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions and a careful perusal of the case record, this Court finds that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are prima facie made out. At this stage, there exists sufficient material on record to establish the applicant's involvement in the alleged illegal activities. 6. The contentions raised by the applicant's counsel essentially pertain to factual disputes, which require adjudication based on evidence before the trial court. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for weighing the adequacy or sufficiency of the material collected by the prosecution. Such issues fall within the exclusive domain of the trial court and can be better addressed and appreciated at the stage of framing of charge as held by Supreme Court in Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and another passed in S.L.P.(Criminal) No.10707 of 2019. 7. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no valid grounds for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with the liberty to the applicant to raise the aforesaid argument at the stage of framing of charge. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Anil K. Sharma Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad