Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39048 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8719 of 2025 Applicant :- Niraj Chaubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shad Khan,Shivam Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application u/s 528 BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.39065 of 2024, under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(b), 18(c), 18A/27(b) (ii), 27(c), 27(d), 28 & 28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, District Varanasi as well as summoning order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint stood lodged for offences under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(b), 18(c), 18A/27(b)(ii), 27(c), 27(d), 28 & 28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the applicant, who has been marked as accused at Sl. No.7 and 10 others, with an allegation that spurious drugs were found in the premises in question. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that the name of the applicant has come to surface only on the basis of confessional statement of Sri Ashok Kumar and the applicant is innocent in this regard, as he has not committed any offence. He further submits that on the basis of the confessional statement, the proceedings cannot be allowed to be continued against the applicant, as he seeks to rely upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P. Pragasam Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Karaikkal Town Police, Pondicherry, 1993 0 Supreme (Mad) 747. He submits that the applicant is innocent. 4. Learned State Law Officer, who appears for the State has invited the attention of the Court towards the complaint, being para-51 so as to contend that here in the present case, it is not as such that only on the basis of the confessional statement, the applicant has been roped in, however, there appears to be a clear cut allegation to the effect that the applicant used to prepare the forged GST Bills and also made payments in the A/c numbers which were indicated by the other co-accused. He submits that once this much material is available on record, then in the circumstances it cannot be said that proceedings cannot be continued against the applicant. 5. Having heard the arguments so made across the Bar, the crucial question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this state. Apparently, the complaint has been lodged wherein the applicant has also been marked as an accused along with others. Though there happens to be a confessional statement of the co-accused Ashok Kumar, but there are sufficient allegation/material that the applicant used to prepare forged GST Bills and also get the amount deposited in the named account in that regard, while providing aid in criminality. 6. Once the position being so, this Court would not throttle the investigation at this stage. Thus there is no illegality in the summoning order. 7. The application is rejected. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad