High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings pre-trial if sufficient evidence exists; such issues must be determined at trial.

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. 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 h