Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140777 Court No. - 82 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30215 of 2025 Applicant :- Raghunath Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar,Paritosh Sukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA, for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge sheet no.12 of 2024 dated 24.8.2024 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 12.9.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No.02 Bareilly in S.S.T. No.1837 of 2024 (State Vs. Kuldeep Kukreti and others) arising out of Case Crime No.119 of 2022 under Section 7A Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Hasanpur, District Amroha pending in the court of CJM, District Amroha during pendency of the instant case. Brief facts of the case: 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on the complaint moved by applicant and as per FIR according to the complainant (applicant) nominated co-accused Kuldeep Kukreti the then Circle Officer received Rs. Three Lacs from him as bribe with regard to a case relates to offence under Section 376 IPC and under the provisions of POCSO Act and after enquiry it was found that allegation levelled against co-accused Kuldeep Kukreti the then Circle Officer was correct and thereafter FIR of the present case was lodged against him on 8.3.2022 for offence under Section7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. After investigation, applicant, who was complainant, has also been made accused on the ground that he gave bribe money to the public servant with intention to get benefit and thereafter charge sheet has also been filed against him. After submission of charge sheet court concerned took the cognizance and issued summon. Hence, the instant application. Argument advanced on behalf of the applicant: 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the complainant of the case and on his behest enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, namely, Usha Tomar against co-accused who was dishonest public servant but surprisingly during investigation he has also been made accused along with named co-accused Kuldeep Kukreti the then Circle Officer. 6. He next submits that even from the entire material available on record it could not be reflected that applicant committed any offence. 7. He further submits, in spite of above facts charge sheet has been filed against the applicant and court concerned also took cognizance and, therefore, charge sheet filed against the applicant as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 12.9.2024 is illegal. Argument advanced on behalf of the State: 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that however, applicant was complainant of the case and he moved an application against co-accused Kuldeep Kukreti the then Circle Officer with the allegation that he received bribe of Rs. Three Lacs but as during investigation it was found that applicant gave bribe to him for illegal purpose, therefore, he has also been made accused. 9. Learned AGA further submits, law is settled that giving and acceptance of bribe both are punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, therefore, charge sheet has been rightly submitted against the applicant and court concerned rightly took the cognizance and, therefore, instant application filed by applicant is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Analysis: NA528 No. 30215 of 2025 2 11.The law with regard to power of this Court U/S 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. is settled that charge sheet and proceedings pending against an accused can only be quashed in rare and exceptional circumstances and at initial stage this Court should exercise its power very sparingly with circumspection. 12. In case at hand, the only submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that he was complainant of the case and on his complaint FIR was lodged against co-accused who was dishonest public servant but during investigation he himself has been made accused in the present matter though there is no cogent and admissible evidence against him and in spite of that Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against him and the court concerned also took cognizance in the matter. 13. Therefore, to appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant it is necessary to go through the entire evidence collected by Investigating Officer during investigation and to analyse, if evidence collected by Investigating Officer during investigation is accepted as it is then also whether any offence against the applicant is made out or not. 14. From the perusal of the record it reflects that however, applicant is the complainant of the case and he moved a complaint against co-accused Kuldeep Kukreti the then Circle Officer with the allegation that he received bribe from him with regard to a case relates to offence under Section 376 IPC and under the provisions of POCSO Act to provide help to co-accused Durgesh Kumar and on his complaint FIR of the present case was lodged against the Circle Officer, who was public servant but even from the FIR it reflects, applicant gave bribe to the public servant to provide benefit to accused of a criminal case illegally and during investigation also it was found that he gave bribe to public servant, therefore, he has also been made accused along with public servant, the then Circle Officer. 15. 15. Therefore, from the evidence available on record collected by Investigating Officer during investigation prima facie it appears that applicant for illegal purpose gave bribe to co-accused Kuldeep Kukreti the then Circle Officer and, therefore, it cannot be said that he did not commit any offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and charge sheet has wrongly been filed against him and court concerned NA528 No. 30215 of 2025 3 wrongly took cognizance over the matter, therefore, charge sheet filed against him and cognizance order passed in the present case cannot be quashed. 16.Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, the instant application filed by applicant is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 SKM NA528 No. 30215 of 2025 4 Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad