High Court

162 of 2025 (State Vs. Jai Prakash and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2023, under Sections - 419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, P.S.- Madihan, District- Mirzapur, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mirzapur.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant was posted as Relationship Manager in Axis Bank and he was holding charge of several other branches of the bank. One Vinay Kumar Singh was holding the post of Relationship Executive and that the files pertaining to amount of below Rs. 15 lakhs were to be dealt with by the sub-ordinates of the applicant. It was duty of Vinay Kumar Singh to collect original Aadhar card, PAN card and 'Khatauni' from the borrower and the same were liable to be forwarded to applicant. There is Credit Team of the bank, which deals with customer verification through other agency to verify documents of the borrower. All the documents were collected by Credit Team and after verification the same were reported to the applicant. It was submitted that the applicant is neither sanctioning authority nor he is a member of Credit Team and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was Relationship Executive, who got collected Aadhar Card of the borrower. The Credit Team has submitted a detailed report and only thereafter loan was sanctioned in favour of the borrower and sanction letter was issued by Credit Team headed by Ratnesh Kumar. It is further submitted that applicant has resigned from his post in September, 2022 and thereafter one Krishna Kumar has joined in the bank as Relationship Manager, who has disclosed the name of applicant by saying that it was the duty of applicant, holding the post of Relationship Manager to deal with the issue in question. The applicant was not named in the first information report, which was lodged against Jai Prakash and unknown employee of the bank. The main culprit is co-accused Jai Prakash. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. The police have not investigated the matter properly and applicant has been charge-sheeted without any credible evidence. It was submitted that impugned proceedings against applicant are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against applicant.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

7. In the instant case, perusal of record shows that first information report of this case was lodged by one Jai Prakash s/o Chhavi Nath against Jai Prakash s/o Hori Lal and unknown bank employees. The informant has alleged that accused Jai Prakash by impersonating himself as Jai Prakash s/o Hori Lal @ Chhavi Nath obtained loan of Rs. 7,13,000/- against the property of informant and in this regard entry was made in the Revenue Record of land of informant. When applicant came to know about said cheating and forgery, he has reported the matter to bank and to the police. It appears that during investigation involvement of applicant was revealed. During investigation Sri Krishna Sharma Relationship Manager of the bank has made statement alleging that said loan in favour of Jai Prakash s/o Hori Lal @ Chhavi Nath was granted by applicant-accused Arun Dwivedi Sales Manager Agriculture and Vinay Kumar Singh Field Officer and they are responsible for grant of said loan. The said both persons have done survey of agriculture loan and all proceedings regarding that loan were done by applicant and said Vinay Kumar Singh. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned / adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned first information report and materials on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 S Rawat

162 of 2025 (State Vs. Jai Prakash and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2023, under Sections - 419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, P.S.- Madihan, District- Mirzapur, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mirzapur.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant was posted as Relationship Manager in Axis Bank and he was holding charge of several other branches of the bank. One Vinay Kumar Singh was holding the post of Relationship Executive and that the files pertaining to amount of below Rs. 15 lakhs were to be dealt with by the sub-ordinates of the applicant. It was duty of Vinay Kumar Singh to collect original Aadhar card, PAN card and 'Khatauni' from the borrower and the same were liable to be forwarded to applicant. There is Credit Team of the bank, which deals with customer verification through other agency to verify documents of the borrower. All the documents were collected by Credit Team and after verification the same were reported to the applicant. It was submitted that the applicant is neither sanctioning authority nor he is a member of Credit Team and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was Relationship Executive, who got collected Aadhar Card of the borrower. The Credit Team has submitted a detailed report and only thereafter loan was sanctioned in favour of the borrower and sanction letter was issued by Credit Team headed by Ratnesh Kumar. It is further submitted that applicant has resigned from his post in September, 2022 and thereafter one Krishna Kumar has joined in the bank as Relationship Manager, who has disclosed the name of applicant by saying that it was the duty of applicant, holding the post of Relationship Manager to deal with the issue in question. The applicant was not named in the first information report, which was lodged against Jai Prakash and unknown employee of the bank. The main culprit is co-accused Jai Prakash. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. The police have not investigated the matter properly and applicant has been charge-sheeted without any credible evidence. It was submitted that impugned proceedings against applicant are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against applicant.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

7. In the instant case, perusal of record shows that first information report of this case was lodged by one Jai Prakash s/o Chhavi Nath against Jai Prakash s/o Hori Lal and unknown bank employees. The informant has alleged that accused Jai Prakash by impersonating himself as Jai Prakash s/o Hori Lal @ Chhavi Nath obtained loan of Rs. 7,13,000/- against the property of informant and in this regard entry was made in the Revenue Record of land of informant. When applicant came to know about said cheating and forgery, he has reported the matter to bank and to the police. It appears that during investigation involvement of applicant was revealed. During investigation Sri Krishna Sharma Relationship Manager of the bank has made statement alleging that said loan in favour of Jai Prakash s/o Hori Lal @ Chhavi Nath was granted by applicant-accused Arun Dwivedi Sales Manager Agriculture and Vinay Kumar Singh Field Officer and they are responsible for grant of said loan. The said both persons have done survey of agriculture loan and all proceedings regarding that loan were done by applicant and said Vinay Kumar Singh. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned / adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned first information report and materials on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 S Rawat