State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supre

Case No. 367 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 134 of 2024, under Sections - 467, 468, 471, 384 I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali, District - Etawah, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations made against applicant are wholly false. The opposite party no.2 has purchased jewellery of Rs. 7,51,910/- from the shop of applicant and only an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid and applicant has merely demanded his remaining amount. That version of applicant is supported by sale register maintained by the applicant at his shop. It was submitted that in the record relating to GST, only an amount of Rs. 11,000/- was shown due upon opposite party no.2 and in this regard it was submitted that the amount was shown less in the said record in order to evade the GST / sale tax. Learned counsel submitted that it may be a case of evasion of tax but in view of allegations made in the first information report and material on record, no prima facie case is made out. The allegation that applicant has forged the voucher in question is wholly false. Learned counsel has referred contents of the first information report as well as statements of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicant.

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that opposite party no.2 has not purchased any jewellery from the shop of applicant. In fact some articles were purchased by the applicant from the shop of opposite party no.2 and later on those articles were returned back and applicant has refused to accept the same. It was submitted that in order to settle that dispute, applicant has forged a voucher showing sale of jewellery in favour of opposite party no.2 and demanded money from the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the version of applicant that an amount of about Rs. 7 lakhs was due upon informant is not supported by the ledger book maintained by the applicant regarding GST, wherein only an amount of Rs. 11,000/- was shown due upon applicant. It was also shown that a complaint was also filed by the applicant against informant making similar allegations, which has already been dismissed by the court. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out.

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 the informant has made clear allegations that applicant has purchased some articles worth Rs. 60,000/- from the shop of informant but later the same were returned back and applicant has refused to accept the same. It was alleged that due to that issue, applicant has prepared a forged bill showing sale of jewellery of Rs. 7,46,910/- to the informant and made demand of the money. The version of informant is further supported by the account book of the applicant, which is maintained regarding payment of GST, wherein only an amount of only Rs. 11,000/- has been shown due against informant. It appears that there are allegations of forgery of bill / voucher. It would be relevant to mention here that an argument was made on behalf of the applicant that the amount was shown less in the ledger book in order to evade GST. Considering facts of the matter and conduct of the applicant, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant 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 :- 25.7.2025 S Rawat SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case No. 367 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 134 of 2024, under Sections - 467, 468, 471, 384 I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali, District - Etawah, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations made against applicant are wholly false. The opposite party no.2 has purchased jewellery of Rs. 7,51,910/- from the shop of applicant and only an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid and applicant has merely demanded his remaining amount. That version of applicant is supported by sale register maintained by the applicant at his shop. It was submitted that in the record relating to GST, only an amount of Rs. 11,000/- was shown due upon opposite party no.2 and in this regard it was submitted that the amount was shown less in the said record in order to evade the GST / sale tax. Learned counsel submitted that it may be a case of evasion of tax but in view of allegations made in the first information report and material on record, no prima facie case is made out. The allegation that applicant has forged the voucher in question is wholly false. Learned counsel has referred contents of the first information report as well as statements of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicant.

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that opposite party no.2 has not purchased any jewellery from the shop of applicant. In fact some articles were purchased by the applicant from the shop of opposite party no.2 and later on those articles were returned back and applicant has refused to accept the same. It was submitted that in order to settle that dispute, applicant has forged a voucher showing sale of jewellery in favour of opposite party no.2 and demanded money from the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the version of applicant that an amount of about Rs. 7 lakhs was due upon informant is not supported by the ledger book maintained by the applicant regarding GST, wherein only an amount of Rs. 11,000/- was shown due upon applicant. It was also shown that a complaint was also filed by the applicant against informant making similar allegations, which has already been dismissed by the court. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out.

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 the informant has made clear allegations that applicant has purchased some articles worth Rs. 60,000/- from the shop of informant but later the same were returned back and applicant has refused to accept the same. It was alleged that due to that issue, applicant has prepared a forged bill showing sale of jewellery of Rs. 7,46,910/- to the informant and made demand of the money. The version of informant is further supported by the account book of the applicant, which is maintained regarding payment of GST, wherein only an amount of only Rs. 11,000/- has been shown due against informant. It appears that there are allegations of forgery of bill / voucher. It would be relevant to mention here that an argument was made on behalf of the applicant that the amount was shown less in the ledger book in order to evade GST. Considering facts of the matter and conduct of the applicant, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant 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 :- 25.7.2025 S Rawat SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad