HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36415 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 16th June, 2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 30th September, 2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 51744 of 2023 (State Vs. Anil Khattar & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 35 of 2019 under Sections 120-B, 418, 419, 467 and 468 I.P.C., Police Station-Chiluatal, District-Gorakhpur, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Gorakhpur. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the First Information Report dated 6th February, 2019 has been lodged by O.P, no.2/complainant against the applicants and the employees of the State Bank of India, Jhugiya Branch, Gorakhpur by alleging therein that the informant and some similarly situated persons, who were illiterate persons, were employed as bus drivers, conductor and watchman in Hallmark Child School, Naharpur, Gulriha, Gorakhpur, during the years 2006-2007 and were receiving their salaries in cash. At the time of their appointment, the applicants, namely, Director Anil Khattar/Butter and Principal Monica Khattar/Butter allegedly obtained their Aadhaar cards, photographs, signatures and thumb impressions on the pretext of opening bank accounts for crediting their salaries, and retained their passbooks. The informant along with other employees continued to receive their salaries in cash and left the school in 2011. Subsequently, one of the employees received a notice from the Income Tax Department dated 24.11.2017 regarding substantial deposits in his bank account, whereupon the informant Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Rajbhar, Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajesh Kumar Rai, Vishwanath Mishra, G.A. Anil Khattar And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) along with others obtained their bank statements and allegedly came to know that huge financial transactions had been carried out through their accounts without their knowledge or consent. It was alleged that the Director and Principal, in connivance with the concerned bank officials, had been depositing and withdrawing money through the applicants' bank accounts and had misused their banking credentials. On the basis of the complaint, an order for registration of the case was passed and the FIR was registered at Police Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur, on 05.02.2019 under the relevant provisions of law. 4. After lodging of the aforesaid first information report, the investigation proceeded and upon completion of the same, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant on which the cognizance has been taken and the applicant has been summoned, hence the present application has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law only with a view to harass the applicant. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after delay of 11 years from the date of alleged incident and after one year from the date the notice has been issued by the Income Tax Department. It is then submitted that the offence as alleged is not made out against the applicants. No incriminating material has been recovered either from the pointing of the applicants or their possession. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has contented that from the allegations made in the First Information Report cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. The defence of the applicant cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. 7. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen where the allegation made in the FIR/complaint, even of they are taken at their entirety, prima facie constitutes cognizable offence against the accused. 8. Position of law for invoking the jurisdiction of inherent power of High Court has been settled by the Apex Court in following judgments:- 1. R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866; NA528 No. 36415 of 2025 2 2. Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451; 3. State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561; 4. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar, 1990 Supp SCC 686; 5. State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; 6. State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222; 7. B.S. Joshi Vs, State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; 8. Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & another, (2007) 13 SCC 165; 9. State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullaha Jilani & others, (2017) 2 SCC 779; 10. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2021 AIR SC 1918. 9. After considering the totality of facts of the case and keeping in mind the position of law, there is no merit in the present application. Apart from that there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is malafide, frivolous and vexatious. The version of the first information report and the statements of the informant/complainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C./180 B.N.S.S.,and the police documents papers support the prosecution version. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings of the present case cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence. 10.In the result, the prayer for quashing of entire proceeding, charge sheet and cognizance order is refused. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed. 12. The future presence of Mr. Shambhu Nath Singh, Sub-Inspector i.e. investigating officer of the instant criminal case, who is present in Court today is exempted unless directed otherwise. September 8, 2026 Sushil/- NA528 No. 36415 of 2025 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad