HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 48750 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for applicant Mr. Shri Kant Shukla and learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of criminal case no.3089 of 2025 (State Vs. Amit Kumar Chaudhary and others) pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar under Section 409, 420,467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. arising out of case crime no.84 of 2024, Police Station Chilhiya, District Siddharth Nagar as well as charge sheet dated 23.08.2025 submitted by the Investigating Officer before the C.J.M., Siddharth Nagar and cognizance/summoning order dated 09.09.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in criminal case no.3089 of 2025 (State Vs. Amit Kumar Chaudhary) and also pass any other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that a First Information Report as Case Crime No. 84 of 2024 under Section 316 (5) BNS was registered at Police Station Chilhiya, District Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shri Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Amit Kumar Chaudhary .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Siddharth Nagar against Amit Kumar Shukla and Ram Ujagir Shukla with an allegation that in Paddy Purchase Year 2023-24, 1264.130 metric ton paddy was purchased from the farmers but only 1016.800 metric ton paddy was supplied to the attached rice mills and remaining 247.330 metric ton paddy was not supplied to the attached rice mills resulting into loss to the State Exchequer. The accused is not named in the F.I.R. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 120B I.P.C. is made out against the applicant, upon which, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar has taken cognizance on 09.09.2025. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has not properly investigated the matter and only on the basis of the statements of the first informant and other witnesses has submitted the charge-sheet. 4. He further submits that the applicant was initially appointed as Manager (General) in the year 2015 in the P.C.F. department and posted in Regional Office, Mirzapur. He was transferred from Mirzapur to Sonbhadra and from Sonbhadra to Basti as District Manager, P.C.F. He is in continuous service in P.C.F. since 2015. His work and conduct has always been satisfactory. He was suspended by the Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation (PCF), Lucknow on some false charge and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. He further submits that the applicant is not a Government Employee as per U.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1965 and no offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. is made out against him. The learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the facts available on record and taken cognizance against him whereas no prima facie case is made out against the applicant, therefore, the summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that a First Information Report as Case Crime No. 84 of 2024 under Section 316 (5) BNS was registered at Police Station Chilhiya, District Siddharth Nagar against Amit Kumar Shukla and Ram Ujagir NA528 No. 48750 of 2025 2 Shukla. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and some evidence were also collected. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on it on 09.09.2025. F rom the perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the statements of the informant and witnesses and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed. 6. As per record, a First Information Report as Case Crime No. 84 of 2024 under Section 316 (5) BNS was registered at Police Station Chilhiya, District Siddharth Nagar against Amit Kumar Shukla and Ram Ujagir Shukla with an allegation that in Paddy Purchase Year 2023-24, 1264.130 metric ton paddy was purchased from the farmers but only 1016.800 metric ton paddy was supplied to the attached rice mills and remaining 247.330 metric ton paddy was not supplied to the attached rice mills. The applicant was initially appointed as Manager (General) in the year 2015 in the P.C.F. department and posted in Regional Office, Mirzapur. He was transferred from Mirzapur to Sonbhadra and from Sonbhadra to Basti as District Manager, P.C.F. During investigation, statements of informant Rajesh Singh and other witnesses namely Vijay Pratap Pal, Dinesh Kumar, Vinay Kumar, Pawan Chandra, Sanjay Bahadur Yadav and Rahul Pandey were recorded. After investigation, a charge- sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on it on 09.09.2025. 7. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case and also taken into consideration the statements of the informant and witnesses recorded during investigation, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by NA528 No. 48750 of 2025 3 this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 BNSS. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused. 9. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. April 20, 2026 Vijay NA528 No. 48750 of 2025 4 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad