HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1305 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anuuj Taandon, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 20.03.2025, the cognizance/summoning order dated 10.07.2025 passed in Special S.T. No.22 of 2025 by the Court of Ld. Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act) C.B.I., Court No.03 Lucknow as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case under Section 61(2) of B.N.S. r/w Section P.C. Act 1988 arising out of FIR No.RC0062024A0028 of 2024 registered at Police Station- CBI/ACB/Lucknow, District- Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of a complaint received on 21.10.2024 from Shri Shivam alleging that co-accused Vijay, who was working as a Mate in Cantonment Board Ayodhya had demanded Rs.15,000/- for issuance of an allotment letter (permission letter) for a work worth approximately Rs.1,37,500/- through auction related to woods held Cantonment Board Ayodhya. The complaint was discreetly verified and upon allegations having been substantiated, an FIR No.RC0062024A0028 was registered on 22.10.2024. A trap was set up wherein co-accused Vijay was arrested red handed while accepting Rs.10,000/-. After the trap, the co- accused Vijay Kumar made a phone call to the applicant. The transcript of the conversation has been annexed with the application wherein Vijay Kumar informed the applicant that Shivam had paid Rs.10,000/- regarding the woods and the applicant acknowledged this information. Vijay asked the applicant whether he should handover the money in the morning or right away whereupon the applicant stated that he should give the money in the morning Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.S.G.I., Anuuj Taandon Amit Kumar Dwivedi .....Applicant(s) Union Of India Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Ministry Of Home Gov. Of India And Another .....Opposite Party(s) and the Madam should also be included therein. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of the aforesaid conversation, which is ambiguous which does not do the applicant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 5. While examining the validity of the charge-sheet and the summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has merely to examine as to whether the prosecution material makes out a case for trial of the applicant. Correctness of the allegations is not required to be examined at this stage and the same would be done by the trial Court after the prosecution is given an opportunity to lead the evidence in support of the charges. 6. The aforesaid conversation between the applicant and co-accused Vijay clearly makes out a case for trial of the applicant. 7. In these circumstances, there is no ground for quashing the charge-sheet, the summoning order and the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 8. The instant application lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. September 19, 2025 -Amit K- NA528 No. 1305 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench