HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30114 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. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 29.10.2023 and cognizance / summoning order dated 06.04.2024, of criminal case no. 8371 of 2024, arising out of case crime no. 456 of 2023, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of C.J.M., Fatehpur. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and no prima facie case is made out against him. It was submitted that the applicant is a tenure-holder of the disputed property, which was sold to the opposite party No. 2 / informant. The allegation that the applicant has sold property, which is part of graveyard, is wholly false. There was revenue entry in the name of applicant and if the mutation of the informant has been cancelled by the revenue authorities, he has remedy to challenge the same before the appropriate revenue court. It is further submitted that 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, the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and both cannot exist simultaneously and on this ground alone the impugned cognizance / summoning order is liable to be set aside. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bipin Kumar, Kamal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Irshad Ahmad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the 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. 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 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. 7. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the informant has made allegations in the first information report that applicant has sold the disputed property to the informant by stating false facts and later it was revealed that the said property was part of the graveyard and on that ground mutation of the informant was cancelled. 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 NA528 No. 30114 of 2025 2 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. However, perusal of record shows that by impugned order applicant has been summoned for the offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. As stated above, in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others (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 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. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated 06.04.2024, passed by the CJM, Fatehpur is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass an order on the point of summoning afresh, expeditiously in accordance with law. 10. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. September 22, 2025 Anand NA528 No. 30114 of 2025 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad