HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36543 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the entire proceeding including charge sheet no. 182 of 2024 dated 2.7.2024 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 11.7.2025 of Case no. 2058 of 2024 (arising out of Case Crime no. 0365 of 2024) (State vs. Shubham Maurya) for an offence punishable under Section 3/9 of U.P.Public Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, PS- Handia, District Allahabad. 3. While assailing entire proceeding in shape of charge sheet and cognizance order, it is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been clearly mentioned that unauthorized material was not at all used by the examinee therefore in view of the facts and circumstances, no offence under Section 9 read with section 2(d), 3 of the Act is made out against the applicant. Applicant had no motive to commit the crime in question inasmuch as prosecution failed to prove any strong motive of applicant for committing the alleged crime, hence the entire proceeding is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application. 5. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar, Chandra Shekhar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shubham Maurya .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) and upon perusal of the record, it is observed that prima facie it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicant are factual issues that requires proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. In proceeding u/s 528 BNSS, this Court is not inclined to hold mini-trial. 6. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 7. In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, if the applicant intended to prefer bail application, the same shall be considered in view of the guidelines/observations given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773. October 6, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 36543 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad