HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36644 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 25.10.2024 as well as cognizance-cum-summoning order dated 28.10.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), court No. 5, Gorakhpur and entire proceeding of sessions case No. 1704 of 2024, State Vs. Imtiyaz Husain, under sections 7, 13(1)(B) read with section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police station: Anti Corruption Basti; District ACO, U.P. arising out of case crime No. 08 of 2024 pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 5, Gorakhpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Lekpal and as per allegations, he made demand of bribe from the complainant for the purpose of demarcation of his property and thereafter on 4.9.2024 he was allegedly apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from him but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 4. He further submitted that even before the alleged complaint and trap, applicant on 13.8.2024 has submitted his report with regard to the property in question and therefore, there was absolutely no occasion either for the applicant to make demand of bribe or for the complainant to give bribe money to him but in spite of that charge sheet has been filed against him. 5. He further submitted that after considering the above facts, even applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Court. 6. He further submitted that therefore, charge sheet filed against the applicant and proceeding pending against the applicant are bad. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that from the record it Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Imtiyaz Husain .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) reflects that as per allegation, applicant not only made demand of bribe but he was also apprehended by the trap team while he was receiving bribe money from the complainant and therefore, it cannot be said that prima facie, no offence under section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act are made out against the applicant. 8. He further submitted that law is settled that defence taken by the applicant cannot be appreciated, at this stage and trial court after evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution will arrive the conclusion whether evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient for conviction or not. He further submitted that at this stage, neither mini trial can be conducted nor threadbare examination of the evidence available on record can be done, therefore, the instant application is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. Applicant is a public servant and as per allegation, he was Lekhpal and he made demand of bribe from the complainant for the purpose of demarcation of his land and subsequently he was apprehend by the trap team while he was receiving bribe money of Rs. 10,000/- from him, therefore, prima facie, alleged offences are made out against the applicant. 11. Further, however, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false as even before the complaint and the alleged trap, applicant on 13.8.2024 had already submitted the report and therefore, there was absolutely no occasion either for the applicant to make demand of bribe or for the complainant to give bribe money to him but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA that at this stage, defence taken by applicant cannot be appreciated. 12. 12. Law is settled that the power of this Court to quash the proceeding under section 528 BNSS should be exercised sparingly with circumspection and if, from perusal of the entire material available on record, prima facie, alleged offences are made out against the accused then this Court should not interfere, at this stage. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, instant application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. September 23, 2025 Ankita NA528 No. 36644 of 2025 2 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad