HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29248 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section - 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 14.04.2025 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 22.05.2025, of Criminal Case No. 35679 of 2025 (State Vs. Vijendra Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 310 of 2024, under Sections - 406, 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station - Jhangaha, District - Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)-III, Gorakhpur. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. Applicants are merely employees of RBS Training and Test Centre and that the main allegations have been levelled against co-accused Vijendra Singh. The Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rishu Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kumari Sunaina @ Sunaina Sahni And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) allegations made by the opposite party no.2 / informant are wholly false and no amount was given to the applicants. It was stated that said RBS Training and Test Centre is authorized to conduct interviews by providing VISA to the persons for visit and work in foreign countries. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. 4. It is further submitted that applicants have been summoned for offences under Section - 406, 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and in view of the law laid down in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another; 2024 SCC Online SC 2248, applicants cannot be prosecuted for both the offence under Sections - 420 and 406 I.P.C. simultaneously and on this ground also the impugned summoning order is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against applicants. It was further submitted that in the alleged incident besides informant several other persons were cheated in the similar manner. In the first information report the informant has clearly stated that an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- was given to applicants and co- accused persons and that they used to advertise on Youtube etc. for providing VISA and job in foreign countries. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a NA528 No. 29248 of 2025 2 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. 8. In the instant case there are allegations against applicants that informant and others have contacted co-accused Vijendra Singh, who has promised them to send and provide a job in Kirgistan (Russia), and on that pretext he has taken an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- from informant. He has alleged that amount was given to the applicants and co-accused persons. It appears from record that besides informant several other persons were cheated in the similar manner and neither any VISA was provided to them nor their amount was returned back. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that no prima facie is made out against applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants 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 NA528 No. 29248 of 2025 3 made out. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused. 9. However so far impugned order dated 22.05.2025 is concerned, by that order the applicants have been summoned under Sections - 420, 406 I.P.C. besides Sections - 419, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.. As stated above, in case of Delhi Race Club (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and the same cannot exist simultaneously in same set of facts and that they are antithetical to each other. Thus, it is clear that impugned summoning order is not in accordance with law. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated 22.05.2025, passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.)-III, Gorakhpur, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass the order on the point of summoning afresh, expeditiously in accordance with law. 11. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. September 16, 2025 S Rawat NA528 No. 29248 of 2025 4 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad