JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1.1 The instant Cr. M.P. has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, in connection with G.R. Case No.55 of 2011 (arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No.25 of 2011) whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 419 , 420, 468 and 471 IPC and summons have been issued to the petitioner. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in the said case whereby and whereunder charges have been framed under /34, 420/34, 468/34, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequential reliefs. 2. The brief facts of the case as alleged against the petitioner is that petitioner being posted as Sargent Major in the Simdega District Police, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, was instrumental in making false caste certificate and residential certificate of the absconding co-accused persons and was also instrumental for the purpose of cheating and also in furtherance of common intention used forged documents as genuine and there is further allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention, with the co-accused persons committed cheating by impersonation and also indulged in cheating by dishonestly inducing delivery of the property of Government to the co-accused persons. Though the petitioner is not named in the FIR but during course of investigation, the Police found allegation against the petitioner to be true and thereafter issued notice under Section 41A of the Cr. P.C. to the petitioner and submitted charge-sheet against him. 3. It is evident from running Page No.46 of the instant petition, wherein particulars of the accused-persons of the charge-sheet have been mentioned, that there is categorical averment therein that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under Sections 419 /420/468/471 IPC . However, in the last page of the charge-sheet, it has been mentioned that charge-sheet has been submitted as “presit” against the petitioner and apparently word “Anu” prefixing the word “presit” has been deleted. However, in the last page of the charge-sheet, it has been mentioned that charge-sheet has been submitted as “presit” against the petitioner and apparently word “Anu” prefixing the word “presit” has been deleted. The learned Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was submitted, considered that the petitioner was not forwarded charge sheet, but basing upon the materials available on record, found sufficient material against the petitioner for having committed the said offences, took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioner. 4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons against the petitioner, when he was not sent up for trial, is not sustainable in law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. 5. It is next submitted that the prosecution has entangled the petitioner in this case merely on the basis that the petitioner attested some photographs of the named co-accused persons of the case for opening the account with the State Bank of India. 6. It is next submitted that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner either by himself for forging or being instrumental in preparing false and fabricated documents. Hence, none of the offences punishable under Sections 419 /420/468/471 IPC is made out against the petitioner. 7. It is then submitted that petitioner has retired from the Post of Dy.S.P. having unblemished service career and is required to reply to the notice under Section 41A of the Cr. P. C. 8. It is next submitted that the order dated 11.08.2025 has been passed without application of the judicial mind, as such, prayer made by the petitioner may be allowed. 9. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the order dated 11.08.2025 by which charge has been framed against him, from this Court by not filing the copy of the same. It is next submitted that in absence of filing of the certified copy of the order dated 11.08.2025 by the petitioner and by submitting that the same was passed without application of mind is not permissible in law and is fallacious. 10. It is next submitted that in absence of filing of the certified copy of the order dated 11.08.2025 by the petitioner and by submitting that the same was passed without application of mind is not permissible in law and is fallacious. 10. It is next submitted that the form of heading of charge goes to show that charges has been framed against the petitioner, inter-alia, for having committed offences punishable under Section 468 /34 IPC on the allegation that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention, with the co-accused persons has forged the caste certificate and residential certificate of the co-accused persons intending that they shall be used for the purpose of cheating and charge for the offence under Section 471 /34 has been framed against him for using the forged documents in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons as genuine. Besides that, charges have also been framed against the petitioner under Sections 420 / 34 and 419/34 as well. 11. It is then submitted that the only contention of the petitioner is that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the same is a contention which the petitioner can agitate at the time of trial of the case, but certainly the same is not a ground for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the instant Cr. M.P. being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, it is pertinent to mention here that though the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.08.2025 passed in G.R. Case No.55 of 2011 (arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No.25 of 2011), but perusal of the records reveals that the Certified copy of the said order has not been filed in the instant Cr. M.P. without any plausible reason. 13. It is needless to mention that without filing a certified copy of the said order, certainly merits of such order cannot be questioned before this Court. M.P. without any plausible reason. 13. It is needless to mention that without filing a certified copy of the said order, certainly merits of such order cannot be questioned before this Court. Because of suppression of the said order dated 11.08.2025 from this Court for the reasons best known to the petitioner, without any plausible reason; this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and in absence of the said order, this Court has no scope for appreciating the submissions made by the petitioner, challenging the said order. 14. Accordingly, this Court, keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, is not inclined to quash the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in G.R. Case No.55 of 2011. 15. Perusal of the records reveals that the form of heading of charge filed in this case goes to show that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being in furtherance of common intention with the co- accused persons committed forgery of caste certificate and residential certificate of the co-accused persons. The further allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner also introduced the some of the co-accused persons to State Bank of India to be the genuine persons by acting as an introducer at the time of opening of the Bank accounts by the co-accused persons in the said bank and in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, he was instrumental in impersonation of the co- accused persons as genuine persons in whose names, the bank accounts were opened. 16. There is further allegation against the petitioner that he, in furtherance of common intention, with the co-accused persons cheated and thereby dishonestly induced for parting of property by way of remuneration to the co-accused persons. Perusal of the copy of the charge-sheet at Page No.46 which is dedicated to the particulars of the accused person of the case namely, the petitioner; it has categorically been mentioned that charge- sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and co-accused persons under Sections 419 , 420, 468, 471 IPC . 17. Perusal of the copy of the charge-sheet at Page No.46 which is dedicated to the particulars of the accused person of the case namely, the petitioner; it has categorically been mentioned that charge- sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and co-accused persons under Sections 419 , 420, 468, 471 IPC . 17. Perusal of the charge-sheet (which is at Page No.49) at Para-16 wherein brief facts has been narrated ,in the 4 th Para it has categorically been mentioned that during the investigation in respect of involvement of the petitioner in the offences punishable under Sections 419 , 420, 468, 471 IPC , the allegations against the petitioner upon being found to be true, notice under Section 41A of the Cr. P.C. was issued to the petitioner and subsequently, the petitioner produced an affidavit through the Hon’ble Court of Ranchi. 18. In view of this categorical allegation in the charge-sheet though it has been claimed by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner that it has been mentioned in respect of the petitioner that he has been shown “Anupresit” but the letters “Anu” is not visible in the charge-sheet rather the letter “Presit” is only visible. 19. Under such circumstances, vide order dated 11.08.2025 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has taken cognizance of the offences basing upon the materials available in the case diary, in consonance with the contents of the charge-sheet in running page -46 at Para-11, dedicated to the petitioner and at running page-49 in Para-16 of the charge-sheet. Hence, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 11.08.2025 as well. 20. In view of the discussions made above, it being a settled principles of law that the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a mini trial as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors . 2022 Live Law SC 594 , the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering.” (Emphasis supplied). 21. It is also a settled principle of law that the defence of the petitioner and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. 2004 (2) Supreme 501 . Now coming to the fact of the case, the only contention of the petitioner is that allegation against the petitioner is false, but certainly the same is a ground which can be considered by the Trial Court during the trial of the case, but the same is not a ground for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. 22. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made in the instant Cr. M.P., in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023 by this Court. 23. Accordingly, the instant Cr. M.P. being devoid of merit stands dismissed.