Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18824 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2859 of 2025 Applicant :- Urmila Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Tripathi,Aman Thakur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Kumar Singh Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Shailesh Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I., Sri Rajiv Kumar Verma, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S. the petitioner has sought quashing of a supplementary charge sheet dated 29.09.2022 submitted against the petitioner arising out of R.C. No.0062020A0003 in Sessions Trial No.812 of 2022. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of an order dated 25.02.2025, passed in the aforesaid case whereby an application seeking discharge of the petitioner has been rejected. She has also challenged an order dated 07.03.2025 where by charges have been framed against the petitioner. 3. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 13.02.2020 bearing R.C. No.0062020A0003, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. against 13 named accused persons, not including the petitioner and some unknown persons regarding misappropriation of government money to the tune of Rs.11,50,06,182/- detected in various accounts of Varanasi Cantt, Head Post Office. After investigation a charge sheet was submitted on 13.12.2021 against nine accused persons. Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet has been submitted on 29.09.2022 wherein the name of the petitioner has also been included. The allegation against the petitioner is that while she was working as a Postal Assistant in the concerned branch five transactions were processed by her for making withdrawals from the accounts of certain individuals on the basis of forged vouchers prepared by the co-accused Pradip Kumar Singh. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was merely a Postal Assistant and she had authority to process the transaction up to Rs.5,000/- only. All transactions in question exceeds the aforesaid thresh hold of Rs.5,000/- and all of them had been processed by the petitioner but had been approved by her higher authority. Therefore, the approving authority was responsible for approval of transactions and the petitioner cannot be held guilty for the same. 5. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, what appears from the material available before this court at this stage is that the petitioner was holding the position of Postal Assistant and she had processed transactions which have been found to be fraudulent transactions. Merely because the transactions processed by the petitioner were approved by some higher authority, it cannot be said at this stage that the allegations levelled against the applicant do not make out prima facie case. She has to face trial for the alleged offence. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered view that the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage. The application is bereft of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench