State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR

1. Heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ashwani Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for State.

2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 07.04.2025 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 30.04.2025, of Case No.379 of 2025 (State Vs. Mayank Dixit), arising out of Case Crime No.16 of 2025, under Sections 318, 316(4) B.N.S., P.S.- Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Aligarh.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant was an employee of opposite party no.2 and on account of previous dispute the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report of this case making false and baseless allegations. The allegation that applicant has withdrawn amount on various occasions from the bank account of informant, is wholly false. It was stated that in normal course amount from a bank account cannot be withdrawn or transferred unless and until 'OTP' is provided by the account holder through his mobile phone or through any other electronic medium. Thus, the allegation of withdrawing amount from bank account of informant or allegation of misappropriation, is wholly false. Referring to first information report and material on record, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out and the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 2 NA528 No. 30973 of 2025

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that applicant was working as principal account employee in the company of informant and he was authorized by the informant to do all banking transactions. Referring to first information report and material on record, it was submitted that there are serious allegations against applicant that he has withdrawn amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs) from bank accounts of informant by way of playing fraud and cheating. It was submitted that in view of allegations made in the first information report and materials on record, 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, the 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. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

7. In the instant matter it appears from record that the informant has made allegations in the first information report that he is owner and director of company namely 'Reature Organic Pvt. Ltd.' and applicant was working as principal account employee in the company of informant and all online 3 NA528 No. 30973 of 2025 transactions were being conducted by applicant on behalf of informant. All details and documents of bank account as well as banking password of the informant were also with the applicant. It was alleged that informant came to know that on several occasions the applicant has withdrawn amount of Rs.11,86,835/- from his bank accounts. When the stock of the company was chequed, it was found that products of Rs.25,00,000/- were also misappropriated. In view of the allegations made in the first information report and material on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. Hence, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out.

8. However, so far as the impugned summoning order dated 30.04.2025 is concerned, by that order applicant has been summoned for offence under Sections 318, 316(4) B.N.S. and as per law laid down in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2024 SCC Online SC 2248, offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and both cannot exist simultaneously in same set of facts and on this account the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. Hence, it appears that the impugned summoning order is not in accordance with law.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated

30.04.2025, passed by the A.C.J.M. Ist, Aligarh is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass the order on the point of summoning afresh, expeditiously in accordance with law.

10. The application u/s 528 BNSS is finally disposed of in above terms. September 19, 2025 CS/ (Raj Beer Singh,J.) CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ashwani Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for State.

2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 07.04.2025 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 30.04.2025, of Case No.379 of 2025 (State Vs. Mayank Dixit), arising out of Case Crime No.16 of 2025, under Sections 318, 316(4) B.N.S., P.S.- Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Aligarh.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant was an employee of opposite party no.2 and on account of previous dispute the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report of this case making false and baseless allegations. The allegation that applicant has withdrawn amount on various occasions from the bank account of informant, is wholly false. It was stated that in normal course amount from a bank account cannot be withdrawn or transferred unless and until 'OTP' is provided by the account holder through his mobile phone or through any other electronic medium. Thus, the allegation of withdrawing amount from bank account of informant or allegation of misappropriation, is wholly false. Referring to first information report and material on record, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out and the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 2 NA528 No. 30973 of 2025

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that applicant was working as principal account employee in the company of informant and he was authorized by the informant to do all banking transactions. Referring to first information report and material on record, it was submitted that there are serious allegations against applicant that he has withdrawn amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs) from bank accounts of informant by way of playing fraud and cheating. It was submitted that in view of allegations made in the first information report and materials on record, 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, the 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. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

7. In the instant matter it appears from record that the informant has made allegations in the first information report that he is owner and director of company namely 'Reature Organic Pvt. Ltd.' and applicant was working as principal account employee in the company of informant and all online 3 NA528 No. 30973 of 2025 transactions were being conducted by applicant on behalf of informant. All details and documents of bank account as well as banking password of the informant were also with the applicant. It was alleged that informant came to know that on several occasions the applicant has withdrawn amount of Rs.11,86,835/- from his bank accounts. When the stock of the company was chequed, it was found that products of Rs.25,00,000/- were also misappropriated. In view of the allegations made in the first information report and material on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. Hence, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out.

8. However, so far as the impugned summoning order dated 30.04.2025 is concerned, by that order applicant has been summoned for offence under Sections 318, 316(4) B.N.S. and as per law laid down in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2024 SCC Online SC 2248, offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and both cannot exist simultaneously in same set of facts and on this account the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. Hence, it appears that the impugned summoning order is not in accordance with law.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated

30.04.2025, passed by the A.C.J.M. Ist, Aligarh is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass the order on the point of summoning afresh, expeditiously in accordance with law.

10. The application u/s 528 BNSS is finally disposed of in above terms. September 19, 2025 CS/ (Raj Beer Singh,J.) CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad