Dismissed¶27

Sanjay Kumar Singh Alias Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2026NA528/36031/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing — inherent power — Section 528 BNSS — cheating S.420 IPC, criminal breach of trust S.406, forgery Ss.467, 468, 471 — FIR by Ajay Rajpal, 'Born to Shine' event, Diljit Dosanjh, forged DS Group letter — cognizance and discharge rejection upheld — no mini trial under inherent jurisdiction — Mohd. Allauddin Khan 2019 (6) SCC 107 applied; Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu followed — Delhi Race Club 406/420 simultaneity left to trial court — application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Having considered the rival submissions and the record, prima facie the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offences cannot be ruled out. ¶19

Sanjay Kumar Singh Alias Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 28196 of 2023 (State Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh), the cognizance order dated 03.07.2023 and the order dated 31.07.2025 rejecting discharge should be quashed in exercise of inherent power under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Having considered the rival submissions and the record, prima facie the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offences cannot be ruled out.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

On the counter-affidavit material — the DS Group manager's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the letter was not issued by DS Group, and the email of Diljit Dosanjh's manager Sonali Singh stating no event was scheduled — it is evident the applicants had dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction.

¶19

Key takeaways

In exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS the Court will not conduct a mini trial to examine the applicant's complicity; that is a matter for the trial court after appraisal of evidence, and the applicants remain free to contest the case and adduce evidence there.ratio¶20
Following Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar, 2019 (6) SCC 107, and the reiterated view in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu, the High Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no jurisdiction to appreciate evidence; contradictions or inconsistencies in witness statements are matters for the Magistrate during trial.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Padam Narain Mishra, J.; March 9, 2026) dismissed an application 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 IPC, Police Station Sector 39, District Gautam Budh Nagar, together with the cognizance order dated 03.07.2023 and the order dated 31.07.2025 rejecting discharge. The FIR, lodged by Ajay Rajpal on 07.04.2023, alleged that Rs 28 Lacs was obtained by fraud on the pretext of a 'Born to Shine' event featuring Diljit Dosanjh and Sunil Grover. Held: prima facie complicity could not be ruled out; the DS Group manager's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and the email of Diljit Dosanjh's manager showed no event was planned and dishonest intention existed from inception; the Court would not conduct a mini trial under its inherent jurisdiction, applying Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar, 2019 (6) SCC 107 and the reiterated view in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu; the contention that prosecutions under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot proceed simultaneously (Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248) was left to the trial court at the appropriate stage. Application dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

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

¶3

Sanjay Kumar Singh Alias Sanjay Kumar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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.

¶6

Court No. - 82

¶7

HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

NA528 No. 36031 of 2025

¶12

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

NA528 No. 36031 of 2025

¶17

¶18

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 40 1 and Ram Narayan vs State of U.P. and Anr. 2025:AHC:194978.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

NA528 No. 36031 of 2025

¶23

¶24

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 .

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

March 9, 2026 Israr

¶29

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)

¶30

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

Sanjay Kumar Singh Alias Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Singh Alias Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghvendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devender Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustafa Alam and 11 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarawati Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Hemlata Bharti and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another