HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7900 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra Balediha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party - C.B.I. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the validity of the charge sheet dated 30.12.2020 submitted by C.B.I. in furtherance of an F.I.R. No. RC0062020A0002, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of P.C. Act, 1988, Branch - CBI/ACB/LUCKNOW, so far as it relates to the applicant. 3. The applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 19.09.2022. 4. The applicant had previously filed another application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and although that application was filed after filing of the charge sheet, the validity of the charge sheet was not challenged in the earlier application under section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.635 of 2024. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-C.B.I. has stated that subsequent to filing of the charge sheet, the trial court has taken cognizance of the case and is proceeding with the trial but neither the validity of the summoning order has been challenged by the applicant nor has any prayer being made for quashing of the proceedings of the criminal case. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the charge sheet is liable to be quashed on the grounds that the applicant is not named in the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vimal Kumar, Ashok Kumar Mishra Baled Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Kumar Singh Ravi Shankar Pandey .....Applicant(s) Central Bureau Of Inves. Cbi New Delhi Thru. Director And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) F.I.R. and that he was working merely as a Data Entry Operator and he has no authority to commit the offending acts. 7. Merely because the applicant was not named in the F.I.R., it could not be the ground for quashing of a charge sheet when the involvement of the applicant has been established from the materials collected during the investigation. 8. Responding to the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was merely a Data Entry Operator, the learned counsel for the opposite party - C.B.I. has submitted that it has come to light during the investigation that the applicant had signed certain documents processing of loan which was a step in commission of the offence. He has further submitted that it has come to light during the investigation that the applicant has transferred Rs.4,00,000/- to the bank account of co-accused middleman Atra Kumar Dwivedi. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the view that the charge sheet has been filed after enough material came to light during investigation establishing involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence. Correctness of the prosecution material and weight of the evidence collected by the prosecution cannot be examined at this stage; non raising a challenge to the summoning order and proceedings of trial and also not challenging the validity of the charge sheet in the earlier petition filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are circumstances that they weigh heavy against the applicant and which resists this Court from exercising its discretionary inherent powers. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that there is no good ground to interfere in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. The application is dismissed at the admission stage. September 17, 2025 S. Shivhare A482 No. 7900 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench