Arif Ikbal presented arguments on behalf of borrower  

Prayagraj: Justice Madan Pal Singh while hearing application U/S 528 BNSS No. 1715 of 2026 involving Pankaj Kumar Sinha Versus State of U.P. and Another, heard Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Krishna Kant Tiwari, Rajnish Kumar Pandey, Sanjay Kumar Mishra and Arif Ikbal learned counsel for borrower. Heard. Krishna Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, Arif Ikbal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State-respondent. By means of the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. the applicant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7th October, 2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, Ghyanpur on discharge application filed by the applicant in Criminal Case No. 15305 of 2022 (State Vs. Pankaj Kumar Sinha) arising out of Case Crime No. 222 of 2018 under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Bhadohi, District-Bhadohi whereby the discharge application of the applicant has been rejected.

It is the case of the applicant that a first information report was lodged by informant/opposite party no.2 against the applicant on 29-05-2018, which was registered as Case Crime No. 222 of 2018 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 506 1.P.C. Police Station-Bhadohi, District-Bhadohi with a delay of 2 and half months from the date of alleged incident mentioned in the first information report i.e. 15th September, 2015, 18th October, 2016 and 19th October, 2016. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant is the proprietor of the firm M/s Mahboob Rugs and that in the course of trade and business, an acquaintance and friendship developed between her husband and the manager, Pankaj Sinha (applicant herein) consequently he used to visit her house frequently. Furthermore a credit limit account no. C.L.U.C.C./01/160008 in the name of informant was operated in the same bank. At the instance of the applicant Pankaj Sinha, on 14th September, 2015 they agreed to obtain life insurance policies and for this purpose, they handed over signed insurance policy form along with two blank cheque. At repeated instance/request of the applicant on 18th October, 2016, they again agreed to obtain life insurance policies and for the same, they provided signed insurance policy form along with two blank cheques. Due to these acts of the applicant, the informant and her family have suffered physical and mental harassment and distress, the business has been adversely affected, resulting in irreparable loss, as the applicant has committed fraud, deception, cheating and breach of trust against the informant.

From perusal of the records, this Court finds that for quashing of the first information report dated 29th May, 2018 lodged by the informant/opposite party no.2 against the applicant, he filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5389 of 2022 (State Vs. Pankaj Sinha). However, the said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 9th May, 2022 a copy of which has been brought on record at page no. 86 of the paper book. Whereafter the applicant filed Application U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. No. 9445 of 2023 (State Vs. Pankaj Kumar Sinha) for quashing of charge-sheet but the same was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Court on 6th April, 2023. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6th April, 2023, he filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6003 of 2023 (Pankaj Kumar Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Another. The said special leave to appeal was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19th May, 2023, copies of which are at page nos. 87 and 88 of the paper book.

From the the aforesaid this Court finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that since the facts and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant before this Court had already considered and examined by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while hearing Application U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. No. 9445 of 2023 (State Vs. Pankaj Kumar Sinha) which was filed for quashing of charge-sheet, therefore, the same are not required to be examined once again by this Court specifically on the ground that the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 6th April, 2023 has attained finality after dismissal of special leave to appeal filed by the applicant against the said order.

The legal position with regard to the scope of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is well settled. In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another [(1979) 3 SCC 4], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court has to evaluate the material on record to determine whether a prima facie case exists, but it cannot act as a trial court to weigh the evidence conclusively. Similar principles have been reiterated in State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39] and Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI [(2010) 9 SCC 368], wherein it has been held that if the material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, the Court would be justified in framing charges and proceeding to trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further in Palwinder Singh vs. Balwinder Singh [(2009) ACC 65 (399) (SC)] has held that at the stage of taking cognizance or considering a protest petition, the court is only required to examine whether the material available on record gives rise to a strong suspicion against the accused. If such strong suspicion exists, the court. is justified in proceeding further. It is not permissible at this stage to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or to evaluate the defence version, as those are matters to be considered during trial.

From a perusal of the material available on record, as well as the impugned order, and the statement of witnesses, who supports the prosecution case,, it is evident that the learned Trial Court, after considering each and every aspect of the matter, including the allegations made in the FIR, the statements of witnesses, and the nature of the accusations, has rightly rejected the application for discharge by holding that a prima facie offence is clearly made out against the appellants. As such, it cannot be said that the learned court concerned has acted without application of mind. The reasoning given by the learned court is just and proper. In view of the above, the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.