Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127625 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21169 of 2025 Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilanand Mishra,Amit Kumar,Renu Rajat Alias Renu Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 22.10.2007 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 26.07.2008, of Case No. 2185 of 2008 (State Vs. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey), arising out of Case Crime No. 39 of 2007, under Sections - 467, 468, 419, 420 IPC, P.S.- Jataha Bazar, District- Kushi Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, / Fast Track Court, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that at the relevant time the applicant was working as Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikhari, Vishunpura and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The opposite party no.2 / informant has lodged first information report making false and baseless allegations and she is still working in the said department. The allegation that applicant has got joined one Sangeeta Devi by committing forgery and by issuing a forged appointment letter is wholly false. No other person has made any complaint regarding any such matter. It was stated that applicant has resigned due to some personal problem and that the allegation that applicant has resigned after it came into knowledge that he has issued forged appointment letter, is wholly false. In fact the grievance of opposite party no.2 was that she did not get salary. There is no credible evidence that applicant has committed any forgery or issued any forged appointment letter. The applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that applicant has no knowledge about the submission of impugned charge-sheet or summoning order thus, he could not challenge the same well within time. Learned counsel has referred first information report and statements of witnesses and submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against applicant. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there are clear allegations that while working on the post of Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikhari, Vishunpura, applicant has issued forged appointment letter to one Sangeeta Devi and got her joined in the department. It was stated that in fact several other forged appointment letters were issued by the applicant and that when it came into the knowledge of department, he has resigned and absconded. It was submitted that a prima-facie case is made out against applicant. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 7. In the instant matter the informant has made allegation that she was appointed as Aganwadi worker in Bal Vikas Pariyojna Vibhag through a selection procedure and she was issued an appointment letter. After she has joined there, the applicant has issued a forged appointment letter in favour of one Sangeeta Devi and got her joined, whereas she has never applied in pursuance to the advertisement of said vacancies. It was further alleged that when the alleged acts of applicant were brought into the notice of higher officials, the applicant has resigned and absconded. As per report of Zila Karyakram Adhikari, it was found that applicant has issued forged appointment letters, by way of forgery in official record. In view of these facts and circumstances, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned / adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. In the instant matter, in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant may be permitted to move an application for discharge before the Trial court concerned, wherein he may raise all his pleas. 9. In view of aforesaid submission, it is provided that the applicant would be at liberty to move an application for discharge before the Trial court concerned in accordance with law and in case such an application is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 10. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad