Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124345 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30886 of 2024 Applicant :- Saurabh @ Shubham Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arjit Srivastava,Usha Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA appearing on behalf of State. 2. The present application has been preferred challenging order dated 21.08.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad in Case No.2634 of 2023 (State Vs. Radha Devi and others), arising out of Case Crime No.95 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 66 of I.T. Act, Police Station Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad through which discharge application preferred at the behest of applicant, was rejected. Further prayer to quashing of entire proceedings of the said case, pending in the court of learned AChief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. 3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case since in no manner, he is involved in the alleged incident. Learned counsel for applicant further argued that once the loan was sanctioned by concerned Branch Manager to one Sandeep Kumar and the loan amount was also transferred into the account of said person to whom applicant has no concern then in which circumstance, applicant was implicated in the present case without any evidence. Learned counsel for applicant also submitted that only one Aadhar Card was recovered from possession of applicant and also no there was independent witness of the alleged recovery. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that at no point of time, applicant was entered into the bank and also applicant was not available in Farrukhabad at the date of incident and as such, no offence is made out against applicant but without considering the said facts, discharge application preferred at the behest of applicant, has been rejected illegally by the court concerned and as such, the same may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and supported the order impugned. Learned AGA also submitted that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that at the stage of consideration of discharge, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial. 5. The ambit and scope of exercise of powers while passing an order of discharge, was subject matter of consideration in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal And Another [(1979) 3 SCC 4], and it was held that the Court while exercising such powers is not to act as a trial judge but should weigh evidence and form opinion only on the limited question of whether a prima facie case is made out. 6. From perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that the court concerned after considering each and every aspect of the matter, rightly rejected the application for discharge by holding that prima facie offence is clearly made out against applicant and as such, it cannot be said that the learned court concerned have acted without application of mind, the reasoning given by it, are just and proper. 7. In view thereof, the application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad