HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51690 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Bhupendra Pal, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Chandra Solanki, learned counsel for the victim in the predicate offence and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material brought on record. 3. This application under Section 528 BNSS / under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Arvind Kumar Dwivedi, Anjali Kumari and Anand Kumar, with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 05.08.2025 & cognizance/summoning order dated 23.09.2025 in S.S.T. No. 1803 of 2025 (State Vs. Arvind Kumar Dwivedi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 267 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Gangster Act), Court No.10, Etawah, with a further prayer that proceeding of the aforesaid case be stayed during the pendency of the present application. 4. The facts in the present case are that a first information report of the present matter was lodged on 13.11.2024, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against the applicants alleging therein that they work as a gang and are involved in other criminal cases. 5. A gang chart was prepared by the sponsoring agency mentioning therein that the applicants Arvind Kumar Dwivedi and Anjali Kumari are involved in three cases in which they are on bail whereas the applicant Anand Kumar is involved in two cases who is in jail, the same was approved by the concerned Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhupendra Pal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Chandra Solanki Arvind Kumar Dwivedi And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) officers and then finally approved by the District Magistrate, Etawah vide order dated 07.11.2024. 6. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet dated 05.08.2025 was submitted against the applicants and vide order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Gangster Act), Court No.10, Etawah have been summoned for offence under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that although in the gang chart the applicant Anand Kumar has been shown to be in jail but he has been subsequently granted bail in the said two cases mentioned against him. It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded but the investigating agency could not find any evidence of any economic gain to the accused-applicants due to their act as gangster. It is submitted that even during investigation it could not be seen that there was any economic gain to the accused-applicants. It is submitted that thus the proceedings are abuse of process of Court and deserves to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the victim and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the applicants work as a gang and have defrauded many people by making a company and calling for investment in it. It is submitted that money was taken by the applicants from various persons which has not been returned. It is submitted that during investigation it has transpired that false documents, cheating and also forgery was committed by the applicants in order to gain material and financial gains. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has been duly approved by the concerned officials after its perusal and also perusal of the records and after their being satisfied the same has been finally approved by the District Magistrate concerned. It is submitted that the order summoning the applicants is not suffering from any irregularity or illegality. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are named in the first information report and charge-sheet has been submitted against them after investigation subsequent to which vide order dated 23.09.2025 they have been summoned. The first information report and the material collected during investigation goes to show that there are allegations against the applicants. The law with regard to quashing is trite.The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been elaborately dealt with and considered by the Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 and it has been observed and held as under: NA528 No. 51690 of 2025 2 "13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18], the following principles of law emerge: 13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences. 13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. 13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. 13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ?rarest of rare cases?. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.) 13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. 13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. 13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC. 13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping. 13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. 13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. 13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all NA528 No. 51690 of 2025 3 facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. 13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. 13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR." 10. The Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 has laid a four- step test for High Courts to follow while considering petitions for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been held as under: "20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, NA528 No. 51690 of 2025 4 i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See:Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]" 11. Law for quashing is strict and trite. The present case does not fall within the category of cases as enumerated in the judgements of Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (Supra) and also on the four-steps test in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (Supra). No ground for interference is made out. It is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused. Further it is also well settled that that while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. 12. In view of the same, looking to the facts and circumstances, the present application U/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. April 8, 2026 AS Rathore NA528 No. 51690 of 2025 5 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad