HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6726 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondent, and Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned orders dated 27.05.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Revision No.15 of 2025, (Krishna Kumar and another Vs. Parvati Devi and another) and order dated 28.10.2024 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Complaint case no. 7327 of 2018 (Parvati Devi Vs. Krishna Kumar and others) under Section 420. I.P.C., Police Station Madhotanda, District-Pilibhit. It is further prayed that this. Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Complaint case no. 7327 of 2018 (Parvati Devi Vs. Krishna Kumar and others) under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Madhotanda, District-Pilibhit, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhil, otherwise petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an allegation was made against the petitioner and her husband that they cheated and duped an amount of Rs.70,000/- which was issued in favour of the respondent for construction of a house under the Indira Gandhi Awas Yojana. He submitted that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the respondent on 16.11.2016 making the aforementioned allegations. He submitted that an amount of Rs.70,000/-, in two installments, was credited in the account of petitioner no.1. He submitted that as soon as she became aware that the credited amount was not in fact meant for her, she immediately sent an application to the Pariyojana Nideshak, District Gram Vikas Abhikaran, District Pilibhit on 9.9.2016, and a copy of it was also forwarded to the Khand Vikas Adhikari, Vikas Khand Puranpur, District Pilibhit. Thereafter an intimation to the Bank Manager of State Bank of India, Branch Madhotanda, District Pilibhit, was given by her on 1.9.2016. Subsequently, a draft in favour of Pariyojna Nidesak Zila Grm Vikas Adhikari, Pilibhit was prepared and was delivered to the appropriate authority. He submitted that the amount which was by mistake credited into the account of the petitioner was immediately informed and returned back before the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was subsequently lodged on 16.11.2016. The entire process had been completed before 16.11.2016. He submitted that the petitioner is a government teacher and is innocent. She was unaware of the transaction resulting into the credit of government money into her account. But as soon as she realized that the said money was not meant for her, she immediately took appropriate steps for return Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Nandini Pandey, Satya Prakash Savitri Devi And Another .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) of the said money. He submitted that summoning of the petitioner for the alleged fabricated offence amounts abuse of process of law and the order dated 28.10.2024 by which the petitioner has been summoned in Complaint Case No.7327 of 2018 (Parvati Devi Vs. Krishna Kumar and others) is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2024, he preferred Criminal Revision No.15 of 2025 (Krishna Kumar and another Vs. Parvati Devi and another). The bonafide of the petitioner was not even considered in the criminal revision and it was dismissed on 27.5.2025. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent has submitted that the petitioners are husband and wife. Both of them conspired together to cheat the respondent and they duped her money allocated for construction of a house under the Indira Gandhi Awas Yojana and got it transferred into their own bank account. He further submitted that the credit of amount in the bank account of petitioner no. 1, who is a government teacher, itself is sufficient to establish that the money was not transferred in her account by mistake but it was a by deliberate act of the petitioner due to which the money was credited into the bank account of petitioner no.1. He further submitted that a departmental proceedings were also initiated against petitioner no.1 upon the same allegations which resulted into her suspension from service. Learned counsel submitted that the order of summoning the petitioner to face trial for offence under Section 420 IPC does not suffers from any infirmity. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. Allegation against the petitioners is that petitioner no. 2, in connivance with each other , got the amount credited in the bank account of petitioner no. 1, amount which was meant to be transferred in favour of the respondent. There is no denial of the fact that the amount which was meant to be released in favour of the respondent later on got credited into the bank account of petitioner no. 1. In the given circumstances, as well as the application moved by the petitioner to the concerned authority with due to intimate of the credit of amount in her bank account, possibility of fraud cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, it cannot be ruled out that the said amount may have been credited into the bank account of petitioner no. 1 by some error committed by the authority. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Court to get the allegations inquired into under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. and to find out whether the credit of amount in the bank account of petitioner no.1 happened due to some deliberate misconduct of the petitioner or the said amount was credited by certain mistake committed by the authority. In the light of the observations made above, this Court finds that it is a fit case to direct the learned Trial Court to pass a fresh order after conducting an inquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Both the orders passed by the learned Trial Court are hereby set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations A227 No. 6726 of 2025 2 made above within a period of two months.The inquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. shall be conducted in the matter and each and every fact to be established should be thoroughly probed into by the concerned authority directed by the learned Magistrate. May 12, 2026 Mukesh A227 No. 6726 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad