Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145209 Court No. - 82 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17150 of 2025 Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Alias Vipin Kumar Rajput Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aushim Luthra,Mayank Chandra,Surya Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State. 3. By way of instant application applicant made following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow this application under Section 528 BNSS and quash the impugned charge sheet dated 07.02.2025 along with summoning order dated 20.02.2025 as well as the charge framing order dated 24.04.2025 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vipin Kumar) and the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 008 of 2024 under Section 7/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Anti Corruption Agra, District A.C.O. (U.P.) pending before the Court of Learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act, Meerut. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to stay the effect and operation the impugned charge sheet dated 07.02.2025 along with summoning order dated 20.02.2025 as well as the charge framing order dated 24.04.2025 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vipin Kumar) and the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 008 of 2024 under Section 7/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Anti Corruption Agra, District A.C.O. (U.P.), during the pendency of the present application u/s 528 BNSS." Brief facts of the case 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 4.10.2024 against applicant and co- accused Hari Singh and according to FIR, applicant was Secretary to the Tehsildar concerned and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant for doing his work and thereafter on his instruction, co-accused Hari Singh was apprehended by the trap team along with bribe money of Rs. 5,000/- . 5. After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the applicant and court concerned took cognizance and issued summons on 20.02.2025 against the applicant and co-accused Hari Singh. Hence, instant application. Argument advanced on behalf of applicant 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that even as per prosecution, however, applicant made demand of bribe from the complainant but admittedly he never received the bribe and the same was accepted by co-accused Hari Singh but in spite of that applicant has also been roped in the present matter and charge sheet has also been filed against him. 7. He further submitted that for the offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act demand of bribe and its acceptance both are necessary and, therefore, offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out against the applicant. 8. He further submitted that even from the evidence available on record, no offence under Section 12 Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the applicant as there is no evidence that applicant made abetement for the alleged offence. 9. He further submitted that even during trial P.W.2, the independent witness, did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. He further submitted that even in the statement of P.W.1 i.e. complainant of the case recorded before the trial court there are material contradictions and NA528 No. 17150 of 2025 2 initially he though supported the prosecution case in his examination-in- chief but in his cross-examination earlier he did not support the prosecution case but subsequently he again supported the prosecution case. 10. He further submitted that therefore, even there is no reliable evidence available on record against the applicant, on the basis of which, he can be convicted. 11. He further submitted that, therefore, charge sheet filed against the applicant as well as proceeding pending against him are bad and both are liable to be quashed. Argument advanced on behalf of State 12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that law is settled only in rare cases charge sheet and proceeding of criminal case can be quashed. 13. He further submitted that from the entire evidence available on record, it cannot be said that applicant did not commit the offence under Sections 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act. 14. He further submitted that it is apparent, applicant made demand of bribe and though, he himself did not accept the bribe money but from the record, it is also apparent that on his instruction, co-accused Hari Singh accepted the bribe and therefore, applicant through co-accused accepted the bribe and, therefore, it cannot be said that he did not commit the offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act. He further submitted that as applicant through co-accused accepted the bribe, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence of abetement against the applicant. 15. He further submitted that , however, P.W.2, the independent witness of the alleged trap, has been declared hostile and there are material contradictions in the statement of complainant i.e. P.W. 1 recorded before the trial court but on this ground, proceeding pending against the applicant cannot be quashed by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 16. He further submitted that law is settled, at this stage, neither mini trial nor threadbare examination of prosecution evidence is either possible or NA528 No. 17150 of 2025 3 permissible. 17. He further submitted that, therefore, instant application filed by applicant is liable to be dismissed. Analysis 18. By way of instant application, applicant challenged the charge sheet as well as summoning order issued against him and proceeding pending against him. 19. From the record, it reflects, applicant is facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act. Power of this Court to quash the charge sheet and proceedings is vested U/s 482 Cr.P.C./ U/s 528 B.N.S.S. and this Court in the interest of justice to secure ends of justice can quash the proceeding and charge sheet filed against an accused but law is by far now settled that this power should be exercised very sparingly only in rarest of rare cases. 20. The Apex Court in its celebrated judgement of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and other 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 considered in detail the scope of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/ or Article 226 of Constitution of India and identified the following categories in which proceedings can be quashed and observed in paragraph 102 as:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their NA528 No. 17150 of 2025 4 entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is 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." 21. Further, three Judges Bench in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others AIR (2021) SC 1918 also approved that proceeding pending against an accused and charge-sheet filed against him can be quashed, if case fell under the category given by the Apex Court in case of Bhajan Lal (supra). NA528 No. 17150 of 2025 5 22. From perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Bhajan Lal (supra), it reflects, proceeding pending against an accused can be quashed, if alleged offences are not made out against him. 23. In the present matter charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant for offences under Sections 7/12 P.C. Act, therefore, before arriving at any final conclusion, it is necessary to analyze that if entire allegation levelled against the applicant are accepted as it is then also whether offence punishable under Sections 7/12 P.C. Act are made out or not. 24. From the record, it reflects, there are allegations that applicant was public servant and he made demand of bribe from the complainant for doing his work and thereafter he accepted the bribe through co-accused Hari Singh and however, bribe money has not been directly accepted by him and the same was accepted by co-accused Hari Singh and the same was also recovered from his possession but considering the facts of the case, it cannot be said that applicant did not accept the bribe money rather prima facie, it appears that he accepted the bribe through co-accused, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the applicant. 25. Further, applicant has accepted the bribe money through co-accused and co-accused was not the public servant and he is a private person, therefore, at this stage, it also cannot be observed that there is no evidence of abetment against the applicant. 26. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that offences under Sections 7/12 P.C. Act are made out against the applicant. 27. Further, however, learned counsel for the applicant also argued that during trial P.W.2, the independent witness of the trap did not support the prosecution case and even there are material contradictions in the testimony of P.W.1, the complainant but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA that at this stage, the meticulous and threadbare examination of prosecution evidence is neither permissible nor possible and at this stage, this Court cannot conduct mini trial. 28. Further, even law is settled, if a prosecution witness turned hostile then also trial court can believe his testimony and merely on this ground his entire testimony cannot be discarded and whether his evidence is acceptable or not NA528 No. 17150 of 2025 6 can only be decided by the trial court at appropriate stage. 29. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in considered view of this Court neither charge sheet nor proceedings pending against the applicant can be quashed. 30. Therefore, instant application filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 KK Patel NA528 No. 17150 of 2025 7 Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad