SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ALIAS SANJAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36031 of 2025

Sanjay Kumar Singh Alias Sanjay Kumar
                                                       .....Applicant(s)
                               Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                          .....Opposite
                                                                Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Anshul Kumar Singhal, Arunendra
                               Kumar Singh, Kumar Kartikeya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

Court No. - 82
              HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri Kumar Kartikeya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Ishat Singh Bhati, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri
Jhamman Ram, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this
Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of Criminal Case
No. 28196 of 2023 (State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh) arising out of
Case Crime No. 236 of 2023 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and
471 of IPC, Police Station Sector 39, District Gautam Budh Nagar,
pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Gautam Budh
Nagar as well as the cognizance order dated 03.07.2023 and order
rejecting discharge application dated 31.07.2025.

3. Brief facts of the present case is that the First Information Report
was lodged by one person namely Shri Ajay Rajpal on 07.04.2023 ,
under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, 1860 Police
Station Noida Sector 39, District Gautam Buddha Nagar alleging
therein that the applicant is running a company in name & style of
"Aventz Production and Eventz" and projects himself to be in the
business of organizing large scale events and is doing the business
for more than 15 years. He was approached by the applicant
company in month of January, 2023 that the company is going to
organize an event i.e. "Born to Shine" in which renowned actor &
singer Diljit Dosanjh & Actor Sunil Grover will be performing in Guar
City Stadium Noida. In the present First Information Report, the
informant alleges that on pretext of having a star studded event in
                                                   NA528 No. 36031 of 2025
                             2

Noida the applicant's company has committed fraud and obtained an
amount of Rs 28 Lacs from him by showing purported documents that
the actor and singer namely Diljit Dosanjh has consented for the
event.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a
innocent person and falsely implicated in the present case due to
ulterior motive to harass the applicant. He submitted that the
applicant holds high reputation in the society and in his profession
and has organized many events in Delhi and NCR region in the past
decades and has unblemished record. He further submitted that the
applicant has suppressed the genesis of the present dispute and has
further given a color of criminal offence to an arrangement made by
the informant, applicant and other parties through an agreement and
breach of agreement thereof in any case can constitute only civil
wrong. It is further submitted that the informant along with other
person in order to obtain money from the applicants has lodged the
present First Information Report. He further submitted that the
applicant did not have any malafide intention to cheat the opposite
party no. 2 as the event could not be held due to the COVID 19
restrictions. He further submitted that the parties have agreed to refer
the matter for arbitration and the applicant has moved an application
u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 for the appointment of the
arbitrator. He lastly submitted that the prosecution under sections 406
and 420 cannot proceed simultaneously in the light of decision of the
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh &
Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248. He placed reliance on the
decision made in the G. Sagar Suri vs State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC
636, R. Nagender Yadav vs State of Telgana and Anr, Inder
Mohan Goswami vs State of Uttranchal (2207) 12 SCC 1 and
State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal

5. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the applicant. He further submitted that
Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet after conducting due
investigation, in which, IO opined that the alleged offences were
committed by the applicants. He next submitted that the event was
never planned in reality but pretended to be planned only to lure
money from the opposite party no.2. The applicant has shown the
forged email and letter of the confirmation of the event. He further
                                                    NA528 No. 36031 of 2025
                              3

submitted that the manager of DS Group has categorically asserted
that the letter alleged to be issued by the manager of DS Group is
forged. He lastly submitted that the discharge application moved by
the applicant has been rejected by the learned trial court with detailed
and reasoned order. He placed reliance on the decision made in the
cases of the C.S. Prasad vs C. Satyakumar and Ors 2026 INSC 39,
Kathyayini vs C. Sidgarth and Ors 2025 INSC 818, Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2021)
19 SCC 401 and Ram Narayan vs State of U.P. and Anr.
2025:AHC:194978.

6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perusal of record, prima facie, the
complicity of the present applicant in the commission of aforesaid
offences cannot be ruled out. On the perusal of the Counter affidavit,
it is evident that the Manager of DS Group has categorically stated in
his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the letter alleged to
issued by the DS Group was not actually issued by the DS Group (
available at page no. 143). The Manager of Daljit Dosanjh namely
Sonali Singh in her email available at page no. 205 has clearly stated
that no event has been scheduled on 5th of march which clearly
reflects that no event was actually planned to be organize from the
inception. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present
case, it is evident that the applicants had dishonest intention form the
inception of the transaction.

7. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case,
complicity of the applicant in the present case is a matter of scrutiny
which can more appropriately be adjudicated upon by the trial court
after appraisal of evidence available on record. At this juncture, in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528
BNSS, this Court is not inclined to conduct a mini trial to examine the
complicity of the present applicants in the occurrence of alleged
offences. Opportunity is still open for the present applicants to contest
the case and adduce the evidence in their support in the trial court
concerned.

8. In Criminal Appeal No. 675 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
1151 of 2018, Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and others,
2019 (6) SCC 107, the Apex Court has held that the High Court had
no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidences of the proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. because where there are contradictions or the
                                                                                        NA528 No. 36031 of 2025
                                                                  4

                                    inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, is essentially an
                                    issue relating to appreciation of evidences and the same can be gone
                                    into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial, when the entire evidence is
                                    adduced by the parties. The same view has also been reiterated in
                                    judgment dated 31.07.2019 passed by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal
                                    No.1082 of 2019, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10762 of 2018,
                                    Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Another v. State of Andhra
                                    Pradesh and Another.

                                    9. As far as the plea that the prosecution under sections 406 and 420
                                    of IPC cannot proceed simultaneously is concerned, in this regard,
                                    the trial court will take care of the verdict of the Supreme Court in
                                    Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh &
                                    Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248 at the appropriate stage of the
                                    trial.

                                    10. In the light of foregoing discussion and the facts and
                                    circumstances of the present case, no ground is made out to invoke
                                    the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of the criminal
                                    proceedings against the applicant, as such, the prayer for quashing
                                    the entire proceedings of criminal case is hereby refused.

                                    11. In view of above discussion, the present application is hereby
                                    dismissed.



                                    March 9, 2026
                                    Israr
                                                                                (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ISRAR AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad