Dismissed¶30

Surjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026NA528/5721/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.528 BNSS quashing application dismissed; cognizance/summoning order dated 23.01.2025 (ACJM Court No.5, Prayagraj) upheld; cyber fraud case — accused implicated during investigation, not named in FIR; charge sheet against applicant and four others; BNS Ss.319(2), 318(4), 111(2)(b) and IT Act Ss.66C/66D; Case Crime No. 51 of 2024, PS Cyber Crime Prayagraj; alleged transfers of Rs.68 lakh, Rs.65 lakh, Rs.75 lakh; Allahabad High Court; Samit Gopal, J.; decided April 23, 2026.

What did the court decide?

In a case of cyber fraud the actual identity of the persons involved cannot surface at the very inception; it emerges only during investigation when the investigating agency picks up a chain, and therefore implication of the applicant during investigation will not make hardly any difference. ¶29

Surjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning/cognizance order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, District Prayagraj, and the entire proceedings of Case No. 25 of 2025 (State Vs. Vijay Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 51 of 2024, should be quashed. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Since investigation 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, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

¶29

Key takeaways

The present application u/s 528 BNSS lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of, and the Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the concerned trial court/District Judge within ten days.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Samit Gopal, J.) dismisses an application under S.528 BNSS by Surjeet Singh seeking quashing of the 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 in 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) BNS and Sections 66C/66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, along with the entire proceedings of the said case. The F.I.R. (lodged 14.11.2024 by Ritesh Srivastava) alleged WhatsApp impersonation of his company's director and fraudulent transfers of Rs.68 lakh, Rs.65 lakh and Rs.75 lakh. The applicant, not named in the F.I.R., was implicated during investigation; his counsel contended he was arraigned only because co-accused Sanjeev Kumar (his brother-in-law) received the funds and that no money was traced to his account. The Court held that in cyber fraud the identity of offenders surfaces only during investigation, so post-FIR implication causes no prejudice, and since a charge sheet has been filed and cognizance taken, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. Application dismissed; Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order to the trial court/District Judge within ten days.

¶1

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

¶2

Surjeet Singh

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

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

¶5

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

"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.

¶11

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

¶12

NA528 No. 5721 of 2026

¶13

¶14

(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."

¶15

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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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:-

¶18

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

¶19

Party Name- P R Globalization Trading OPC Private Limited, Accounts No.17060210004708, Bank Name- UCO Bank, IFSC Code-

¶20

NA528 No. 5721 of 2026

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

NA528 No. 5721 of 2026

¶27

¶28

chance in the trial.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

Surjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjeet Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Robin vs State of U.P. and Another

Phulgain and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Giriraj Girraj Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Anubhav Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Wahid Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Deepika Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others