HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33193 of 2025 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party No. 1. 2. The instant application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge sheet dated 30.04.2024, cognizance/ summoning order dated 11.07.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 6436 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. 16336 of 2024) arising out of Case Crime No. 52 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120- B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Mau, District Mau pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau. 3. First information report dated 16.02.2024 was lodged against six persons, the applicant being accused No. 6 therein. The allegation levelled in the FIR is that a gang was operational which was involved in unlawfully facilitating clearance in entrance examinations relating to the Police recruitment process and the said activity was being undertaken from a centre being run in the name and style of "R. K. Consultancy". Various articles were recovered by the police as noted in the FIR itself and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter, merely on the basis of presumptions. In paragraph 15 of the affidavit, it is stated that the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Nandan, Subedar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ravikant Pandey .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and another .....Opposite Party(s) applicant is Superintendent of R.K. Consultancy, wherefrom the accused persons were arrested and several fake documents were recovered by the police. Further submission is that the applicant's implication in the matter is only at the strength of statements of co-accused persons, namely, Amit Singh and Sonu alias Siddharth Kumar and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Further submission is that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mau. In sum and substance, the contention is that the Investigating Officer did not collect any credible evidence during the course of investigation and, therefore, taking cognizance in the matter by a non-speaking order vitiates the proceedings and, hence, the applicant is entitled to interim relief. 5. Learned A.G.A. submits that the FIR itself discloses recovery of various articles and once not only the co-accused persons, but also independent witnesses, namely, Nand Lal Maurya and Deepak Kumar Singh had stated about the applicant, it cannot be said that the applicant has no role in the matter and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 6. Having considered the submissions made, the Court finds that in the FIR itself, it was mentioned that large number of mobile phones, blank cheques, Adhar Cards, seals, photographs, NCC Certificates, Income Certificates, Domicile Certificates, Caste Certificates, Admit Cards relating to the recruitment process, C.P.Us. (Central Processing Units), Monitors, Key Boards, Mouses, Power Cables, Laptops, Mark-sheets, Motorcycles, Laserjet Printers were recovered. In the statements of co- accused, it has come that the applicant is the In-charge of R.K. Consultancy and used to demand sums varying from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs. 9,50,000/- per student and his centre was involved in the activity of fabricating papers for the purposes of entrance examinations. In the statements of independent witnesses also, it has come that the applicant is In-charge of R.K. Consultancy. As far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the independent witnesses Nand Lal Maurya and Deepak Kumar Singh, stated that on the date of incident, the applicant had met the said witnesses in Fatima Hospital where wife of the applicant had delivered a child, and hence the applicant was not on the spot, the same, in itself, is not sufficient to completely out-weight the involvement NA528 No. 33193 of 2025 2 of the applicant in the acts as alleged. It has not been denied by the applicant that the applicant is not concerned or connected with R.K. Consultancy, rather the applicant has himself stated to be Superintendent of such Consultancy. Abbreviation "R.K." denotes as to what, has not been explained before the Court and there is nothing to disbelieve at this stage that such abbreviation "R.K." means Ravi Kant, which is the name of the applicant himself. 7. Recovery of large number of articles, as noted above, and consistent stand taken by the witnesses during the course of investigation, leads the Court to arrive at a conclusion that taking cognizance in the matter, does not suffer from any illegality. As far as anticipatory bail is concerned, the said order was passed on 01.03.2024, by which time investigation was not over and charge sheet was submitted later on. 8. Considering the entire facts of the case, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out or that submission of charge sheet is a faulty exercise. The applicant may have other remedies available under the law but no ground stands made out either to quash the proceedings or grant interim relief to him. 9. The application has no merit and is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to avail other remedies available to him in law. September 10, 2025 Sazia NA528 No. 33193 of 2025 3 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad