Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35772 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7809 of 2025 Applicant :- Safdar Hussain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rayoof Ali 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 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 13.04.2006, the cognizance order dated 20.05.2006, as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 2400 of 2006, titled State v. Vikram Singh, arising out of Case Crime No. 70 of 2006, registered under Sections 6/7/10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act and Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 353 of IPC, at Police Station Paikoliya, District Basti. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant, being the Principal of the concerned school, has no connection with the alleged offence. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation or material evidence on record to establish any culpability or motive on the part of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents. It is urged that mere association with the institution where the alleged incident took place does not render the applicant liable for the alleged acts of malpractice. The learned counsel submits that the charge sheet and the entire proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and hence, deserve to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the applicant, being the Principal of the school in question, is prima facie involved in the commission of the offence. It is vehemently contended that the applicant played a pivotal role in facilitating the use of unfair means by allowing a fake person to impersonate the original candidate during the examination. It is further contended that the applicant, being the head of the institution, was under an obligation to ensure the integrity of the examination process, and his failure to discharge this duty amounts to active connivance. The role of the applicant in facilitating and permitting such malpractice is manifestly apparent from the material available on record. 5. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie sufficient evidence exists against the applicant to warrant the continuance of the trial. The allegations leveled against the applicant are of serious nature, and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage and are subject to determination during the course of trial. 6. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised with caution and only when it is demonstrated that the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court or is otherwise liable to be quashed. In the instant case, no cogent ground has been made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present application. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Anil K. Sharma Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad