HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30004 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 28.03.2024 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 23.07.2024, of Case No. 38178 of 2024 (State Vs. Suraj Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.162 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S.- Dubaulia, District- Basti, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Basti. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is running a "Grahak Sewa Kendra" and the informant has withdrawn an amount of Rs.60,000/- by way of two withdrawal slips of Rs.30,000/- each. The allegation that applicant has misappropriated an amount of Rs.30,000/- of informant, is wholly false. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Suraj Kumar Gautam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. It is further submitted that by impugned order dated 23.07.2024 applicant has been summoned for offence under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. and as per law laid down in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2024 SCC Online SC 2248, offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and both cannot exist simultaneously and on this account alone the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in first information report and materials on record, a prima-facie case is made out against applicant. 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 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. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh NA528 No. 30004 of 2025 2 Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held. 8. In the instant matter it appears from record that applicant is running a "Grahak Sewa Kendra". The informant has alleged that she has approached the applicant for withdrawal of Rs.30,000/- but applicant has fraudulently obtained her signatures on two slips and withdrawn and amount of Rs.60,000/- and that thereby an amount of Rs.30,000/- of informant has been misappropriated. In view of allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, it can not be said that no prima-facie case is made out against applicant. 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. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 9. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned first information report and materials on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Hence, the prayer sought above is hereby refused. 10. However, so far impugned summoning order dated NA528 No. 30004 of 2025 3 23.07.2024 is concerned, by that order applicant has been summoned for offence under Sections 420, 406 IPC and in case of Delhi Race Club (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and both 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. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated 23.07.2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate- Ist, Court No.12, Basti 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. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is disposed of. September 22, 2025 'SP'/- NA528 No. 30004 of 2025 4 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad