Allahabad High Court

SURJEET SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and is dismissed.

Summary

Surjeet Singh filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the summoning order dated 23‑01‑2025 and stay the cyber‑fraud trial (Case No. 25 of 2025) in which he was named as an accused. He contended that he was never mentioned in the FIR and was implicated only because his brother‑in‑law, Sanjeev Kumar, was a co‑accused, asserting that no money was transferred through his account. The State argued that in cyber‑fraud investigations the true identities of perpetrators often emerge only during investigation and that a charge‑sheet had been filed against the applicant. The Court examined the FIR, the charge‑sheet and the nature of the alleged fraud involving large sums transferred through multiple bank accounts under Sections 319(2), 318(4) of the B.N.S and Sections 66C, 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. It held that the applicant’s implication in the charge‑sheet was sufficient for the court to take cognizance and summon him. Consequently, the application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed as lacking merit.

Issues considered

Whether an application under Section 528 BNSS to quash a summoning order and stay proceedings is maintainable when the accused was not named in the FIR but is implicated in the charge‑sheet.
Whether the applicant’s alleged lack of direct involvement in the cyber‑fraud warrants dismissal of the summons.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 111(2)(b), 318(4), 319(2)
BNSS — s. 528
Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 — s. 66C, 66D

Subjects

cyber fraud
money laundering
false implication
quash of summons
Section 528 BNSS
Information Technology Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5721 of 2026

Surjeet Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vipin Gangwar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Vipin Gangwar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the
record.

3. Learned A.G.A. submits that he has received instructions for which
time was prayed which was allowed on 18.2.2026.

4. This application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Surjeet
Singh with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, MOST RESPECTFULLY prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned summoning
/cognizance order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court no 5, District Prayagraj on charge sheet dated
17.01.2025 bearing charge-sheet no. 02 of 2022 registered as Case No. 25
of 2025 (State Vs. Vijay Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.
51 of 2024 under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 111(2) (b) B.N.S and sections
66C/66D of L.T. Act. Police Station Cyber Crime Police Thana Prayagraj,
District Prayagraj including the entire proceedings of the said case.
It is further, praved that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to stay
the further proceedings of Case No. 25 of 2025 (State Vs. Vijay Kumar
and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 51 of 2024 under Sections
319(2), 318(4), 111(2)(b) B.N.S and sections 66C/66D of 1.T. Act. Police
Station Cyber Crime Police Thana Prayagraj, District C.C.H.Q
NA528 No. 5721 of 2026
2

(Prayagraj) pending in the Court of Fast Track Court, court no 2 District
Prayagraj during the pendency of present Application before this Hon'ble
Court and/ or to pass such other and further suitable order or direction as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case."

5. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 14.11.2024, under Sections
319(2), 318(4) BNS, 2023 and Sections 66C & 66D of Information
Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, by Ritesh Srivastava against the
person using Mobile No.8429561659, alleging therein that he is working
in Ecavo Agro Daily Private Limited. On 13.11.2024 he received a
message on his Whatsapp No.7311128120 from Mobile No.8429561659.
On the Whatsapp ID of Mobile No. 8429561659 there was a profile photo
of Sri Abhishek Gupta, the Director of Company. He then considering the
said message to be the message of the Director of the Company, of whom
the accounts related the details were required, shared them. The details
were asked stating of their requirement in a meeting. Subsequently it was
stated that Rs.68 lakh to be transferred in the account of the client for
some business deals on which account details was sent stating it to be a
client's details, on which it was directed to transfer money. The details of
the account as sent is as under:-

"1. Party Name- Galaxy Electronics, Accounts No. 924020027427621,
Bank Name- Axis Bank, IFSC Code- UTIB0000017, RTGS No.-
PSIBR24318813696, Amount- Rs.68 lakh."

Considering the transactions to be important priority was given to it. From
the said Whatsapp No. payment details and UTR No. were also asked for,
on which he shared UTR No. on the said Whatsapp No. Again by stating
of talks with the client regarding deals two transactions of Rs.65 lakh and
Rs.76 lakh were told to be done in different accounts which are as under:-

"2. Party Name- Leader Oil Corporation Limited, Account No.-
019205008688, Bank Name- ICICI Bank, IFSC Code- ICIC0000192,
RTGS No.- PSIBR24318826371, Amount Rs.65 lakh.

3. Party Name- P R Globalization Trading OPC Private Limited,
Accounts No.17060210004708, Bank Name- UCO Bank, IFSC Code-
NA528 No. 5721 of 2026
3

UCBA0001706 RTGS No.-PSIBR24318841460, Amount Rs.75 lakh."

He then shared UTR No. of the said transactions on the said mobile
number, on which money was transferred. In the evening when he talked
to the Managing Director then he stated that he has not sent any message,
it was then felt that cyber fraud has been committed. A report be lodged
and action be taken.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is
not named in the F.I.R. but his implication in the matter has surfaced
during investigation. Further it is submitted that the applicant has been
made as an accused only on the basis that co-accused in the matter is
Sanjeev Kumar who is his brother-in-law, in whose account money was
transferred by the informant. It is submitted that no money was
transferred in the account of the applicant. It is submitted that charge
sheet in the matter has been submitted and the court concerned vide order
dated 23.1.2025 has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant along
with four other persons without appreciating the fact that the applicant is
not the beneficiary of the said transactions. It is submitted that the
applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-20 of the affidavit.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for quashing and
the present petition and submitted that the present matter relates to a cyber
fraud in which huge amount of money has been swindled by the
fraudsters. It is submitted that during investigation complicity of the
applicant has surfaced in the matter. It is submitted that in a matter of
such nature it is not possible for the victim/informant to know identity of
the accused and disclose it in the F.I.R. but it is only during investigation
that the same surfaces and thus the persons are made accused. It is
submitted that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the
applicant and four other accused on which the court concerned has taken
cognizance and summoned them. It is submitted that in so far as the
nature of occurrence is concerned, the fact that there is a huge amount of
money involved in the matter which has been taken away through cyber
fraud and also the fact that during investigation, implication of the
applicant and four other persons have surfaced and as such the same does
not call for any interference by this Court as the applicant will have a
NA528 No. 5721 of 2026
4

chance in the trial.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the present case is a case of cyber fraud and
money has been taken from the account by persons involved in cyber
fraud. The actual identity of persons involved cannot surface at the very
inception in such matters as identity is hidden and thus names of the
accused and their identification is not known to the informant. It is only in
the investigation when the investigating agency picks up a chain it starts
identifying the accused in such matters. In the present matter also since it
is a matter of cyber fraud, implication of the applicant during
investigation will not make hardly any difference. Investigation in the
matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the
applicant and four other accused on which the court concerned has taken
cognizance and summoned them and as such it cannot be said that no
offence is made out against the applicant.

9. The present application u/s 528 BNSS lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

11. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the concerned
trial court/District Judge for information and necessary action within ten
days from today.

(Samit Gopal,J.)
April 23, 2026
Naresh

Digitally signed by :-
NARESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…