Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24129 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5020 of 2025 Applicant :- Sonu Yadav Alias Udai Pratap Yadav Alias Krishna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pyare Yadav,Shri Niwash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of Charge-Sheet No. 02/2021, dated 15.12.2021, the cognizance/summoning order dated 04.02.2022, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1220 of 2022, titled State v. Ambesh @ Amresh and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 0020 of 2021, registered under Sections 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, at P.S. Madhuban, District Mau. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to political rivalry. It is contended that no recovery has been made from the applicant, and he was not named in the FIR. His name surfaced during the investigation solely on the basis of the statement of co-accused Ambesh @ Amresh, and there is no direct evidence against him. It is further submitted that the investigation conducted by the police was not fair, and the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the competent court vide order dated 13.10.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mau. Additionally, it is argued that there is no independent witness to the alleged incident, and all witnesses produced by the Investigating Officer are police personnel. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposes the application, arguing that though the applicant was not named in the FIR, but there are serious allegation of cloning the ATM Cards against him. It is submitted that three forged/cloned ATM cards and a sum of Rs. 58,000/- were recovered from the co-accused, who implicated the applicant in the commission of the crime. It is further contended that the allegations against the applicant satisfy the ingredients of Sections 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., as well as perusal of the material available on record, it is prima facie evident that serious allegations of ATM card cloning have been made against the applicant. The said allegations would attract the provisions of Sections 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act. Consequently, no case is made out for quashing the impugned proceedings. 6. So far as the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, it can be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 7. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Shafique Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad