Judgment : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. The SBCRLMP No. 1797/2025 is filed with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordship be pleased to call for the record of the case pertaining to this case. Further this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the orders of the learned Courts below dated 15.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deeg, District Bharatpur and the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg. Further this Hon'ble Court be pleased to sent back the investigation of this case to the investigating agency 193(8) BNSS (U/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C.) with the direction to conduct the same within a period of 90 days as per the provisions of BNSS. And pass such other order as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court." and SBCRLMP No. 2619/2025 is filed with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordship be pleased to call for record of the case pertaining to the First Information Report No. 37/2020 dated 25.01.2020 pending investigation with the Police Station, Deeg, District Bharatpur for offence U/s. 420 and 406 IPC and examining the same in detail, accept/allow this criminal miscellaneous petition; and further, satisfy the ends of justice, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash/set aside the First Information Report No. 37/2020 dated 25.01.2020 registered with the Police Station Deeg, District Bharatpur for offence U/s. 420 and 406 IPC . Further this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the further proceedings arisen out of this FIR No. 37/2020 registered with the police station Deeg, District Bharatpur. And pass such other order as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court." 2. Factual matrix o the instant matter is that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were serving members of the same police department. Petitioner has alleged that the respondent No. 2 has lodged a false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner, resulting in the registration of FIR No. 37/2020 at Police Station Deeg, for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein, it is alleged that, approximately four years prior, in the year 2016, the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,00,000 from respondent No. 2 and thereafter willfully defaulted on its repayment. 3. 8,00,000 from respondent No. 2 and thereafter willfully defaulted on its repayment. 3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the respondent had stated of giving money to the petitioner in the year 2016 from time to time whereas FIR qua the same was lodged in the year 2020 i..e, with a delay of approximately four years. Further, it was submitted that the respondent, nowhere in the FIR had mentioned the mode of payment. Moreover, there is no evidence in writing which supports the lending of said amount except in the statements of the other persons who have lent money to the complainant/respondent for further letting it to the petitioner. 4. Furthermore, it was submitted that preliminary inquiry against the petitioner was headed by Dy. S.P., circle Deeg, District Bhagalpur, who wrongly concluded the inquiry against the petitioner and found him guilty in the matter for taking approximately 8 lakhs from the respondent in the name of opening a liquor shop under the name of petitioners’ son. In this regard, learned counsel had submitted that the liquor contract was of total amount Rs. 20 lakhs, wherein petitioners’ son was one of the partners out of four partners, hence assuming the respondents’ story to be true, then approximately Rs. 5 lakhs fall under the share of one partner. Additionally, it was submitted that for arranging the money in question, the petitioner had surrendered his three insurance policies. However, concerned Investigating Officer had not considered the said fact thus, the investigation was not conducted in a fair manner in the instant matter. 5. It was further submitted that the investigating officer without conducting investigation, got the petitioner declared absconding vide order dated 06.01.2023 and even got arrest warrant issued against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Trial Court, whereby learned Trial vide order dated 08.12.2023 quashed the order dated 06.01.2023 and subsequent orders qua issuance of warrant. 6. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C before the learned Trial Court, whereby, learned Trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 08.04.2024. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned ADJ Court, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 15.02.2025. 7. Additionally, it was submitted that charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner in the state of absconding without conducting any proper inquiry. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned ADJ Court, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 15.02.2025. 7. Additionally, it was submitted that charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner in the state of absconding without conducting any proper inquiry. Withal, it was submitted that despite the request for changing the Investigation Officer, investigation was assigned to the same investigation officer. 8. Lastly, it was submitted that by lodging the present complaint, the respondent has abused the process of law as instant dispute falls under the domain of civil disputes. In support of the said contentions, learned counsel had placed reliance upon the judgments titled as Satish Chandra Ratan Lal Shah vs State of Gujarat and Ors reported in AIR 2019 SC 1538 Madan Lal Pareek vs State of Rajasthan and Ors ., reported in 2024 (4) Criminal CC 561 , Mamta Shailesh Chandra vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors. , registered as Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2024 and Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors ., reported in (2011) 7 SCC 59 . 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the petitioner had entered into a partnership agreement concerning the operation of a liquor shop in the name of his son. In connection with this venture, the petitioner allegedly borrowed a total sum of Rs. 8 lakhs from the respondent on various dates. However, upon the respondent’s demand for repayment, the petitioner is said to have made repeated excuses and continuously deferred the payment. Aggrieved by the petitioner’s conduct, the respondent subsequently lodged a First Information Report (F.I.R.), pursuant to which an investigation was initiated. 10. Subsequently, in compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 18.08.2020 issued by the Superintendent of Police, the case file was transmitted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, S.I.C.U.A.W., Bharatpur, who duly verified the statements recorded by the former Investigating Officer and thereafter carried out further investigation. 11. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner had addressed a complaint to the Director General of Police, pursuant to which the petitioner and his co-witness were summoned for investigation. However, despite repeated opportunities, they failed to mark their presence and were also not found at their residence. Subsequently, another witness was summoned by the Director General of Police, who categorically denied all the allegations leveled by the petitioner. 12. However, despite repeated opportunities, they failed to mark their presence and were also not found at their residence. Subsequently, another witness was summoned by the Director General of Police, who categorically denied all the allegations leveled by the petitioner. 12. Furthermore, it was submitted that upon completion of investigation, the allegations stood substantiated against the petitioner. It was also submitted that the instant matter pertains to criminal breach of trust. Additionally, it was submitted that the petitioner was enlarged on bail vide order dated 29.10.2021 subject to joining the investigation on or before 09.11.2021, however, despite the same, petitioner had not co-operated with the investigation and had absconded, resultant to which arrest warrants were issued qua the petitioner by the competent Court. 13. Lastly, it was submitted that challan was issued against the petitioner on 31.12.2022, however, the same was presented in the Court on 12.01.2023 and charge-sheet was filed on 01.01.2023. 14. Heard and considered. 15. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, taking note of the judgments cited at the Bar and upon assiduous perusal of the material available on record, this Court has made the following observations: - 15.1 That the petitioner had obtained a loan from the respondent to the extent of approximately Rs. 8,00,000/- in installments during the year 2016, and upon his failure and refusal to repay the said amount, the impugned FIR came to be lodged in the year 2020 under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . That the alleged cause of action had, in fact, arisen in the year 2019. 15.2 That the petitioner and the respondent were working together in the same department. 15.3 That upon perusal of the factual report it is noted that investigation in the instant was conducted by different Investigating Officers. 15.4 That in connection with the matter, the Circle Officer, Circle Deeg, summoned both the parties and upon conducting a preliminary investigation vide letter dated 30.12.2019, found the allegations against the petitioner to be substantiated. Moreover, the petitioner had also filed an application before the Circle Officer, which, upon due consideration, was found to be false and accordingly rejected. 15.5 That the contents of the factual report reflects that the petitioner was absconding since the date of the incident and persistent efforts were made to secure his arrest; however, he could not be traced. Moreover, the petitioner had also filed an application before the Circle Officer, which, upon due consideration, was found to be false and accordingly rejected. 15.5 That the contents of the factual report reflects that the petitioner was absconding since the date of the incident and persistent efforts were made to secure his arrest; however, he could not be traced. Moreover, the petitioner was enlarged on bail vide order dated 29.10.2021 subject to condition of joining the investigation, despite this, the petitioner had not co-operated with the investigation. 15.6 That challan and charge-sheet is already filed in the instant matter. 16. While placing reliance upon the judgment titled Punit Beriwala vs. The State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 582 , this Court is of the opinion that delay in lodging of an F.I.R. cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings. 17. That as charge-sheet is already filed in the instant matter, and conjoint reading of F.I.R. and charge-sheet discloses the commission of an offence. Moreover, investigation in the instant matter is conducted by different Investigation officers, who have found the allegations to be proved against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was alleged to be absconding. Reliance is placed upon the judgment titled as State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.; 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. 18. Further, in Rajeev Kourav vs Baisahab ; AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 909, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that evidence appreciation is impermissible at the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C.,/528 BNSS petition, and if the allegations discloses ingredients of the offence, proceedings cannot be quashed. 19. Taking note of the aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are to be adjudicated upon during the course of trial, and this Court, at this stage, cannot undertake the exercise of conducting a mini-trial. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 INSC 19 . That it is a settled position of law that powers under Section 528 BNSS should be exercised sparingly by the Courts. 20. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed. No orders as to cost. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.