NA528/13472/2026 of NASRIN AKHTAR AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 19 April 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing of the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Revision No. 151 of 2025, whereby the revisional has set aside the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/ Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghatampur, Kanput Dehat in Complaint Case No. 1258 of 2022 (Saliman Vs. Rizwan and others) discharging the accused/applicants from the charges under Sections 419, 420, 465, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., remanded the matter to the court concerned in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complainant is the real mother of the applicant No. 2 and mother-in-law of the applicant No. 1, who has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegation that the applicants in connivance with the Bank officials opened a joint bank account and taken away ten lakh rupees from her account. On moving of such application the court concerned called for a police report, who submitted its report stating therein that there is family dispute between them and the allegations made by the complainant regarding financial transactions are not substantiating. The said application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as complaint case and after recording of statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. the court concerned summoned the applicants under Sections 419, 420, 465, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., which summoning order was challenged by the applicants before the revisional court who dismissed the said revision, whereupon applicants approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging both the summoning order as well as revisional court order wherein a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2024 directing the applicants to move discharge application, whereafter applicants moved an application before the court Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ritesh Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nasrin Akhtar And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

concerned, wherein objections as well as its reply was also moved and the court concerned after considering entire facts and circumstances allowed the said discharge application by discharging the applicants vide its order dated 21.07.2025. Being aggrieved from such judgment and order the complainant filed criminal revision before the revisional court who vide its impugned order while setting aside the trial court's order remanded the matter to the court concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that the provisions contained under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. provides that the Magistrate has the pwoer of discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case, i.e., even before such evidence is led. However, for discharging an accused under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has to come to a finding that the charge is groundless and there is no question of any consideration of evidence at that stage. Thus, the revisional court has erred in law while passing the impugned order, which suffers from illegality, infirmity and impropriety and is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made on behalf of applicants and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the same has been passed in correct perspective.

5. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by both the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that the trial court had discharged the applicants vide its order dated 21.07.2025, being dissatisfied therewith the complainant challenged the order of the trial court before the revisional court, which order has been set aside by the revisional court while remanding the matter before the court concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law.

6. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the revisional court has passed the impugned order after a detailed discussion and after scrutinizing and evaluating the correctness, llegality or propriety of trial court's order as provided under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Thus, there appears no illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the order impugned passed by the revisional court and the same appears to have been passed in correct perspective.

7. The application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

8. Dismissed accordingly. April 20, 2026 Mustaqeem. NA528 No. 13472 of 2026 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad