HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10711 of 2025 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 25.08.2025, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No.77 of 2025 titled Amitabh Kunal v. State of U.P. and another, and the order dated 24.02.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Case No.13162 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.621 of 2021, under Sections 420, 409 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, as well as for discharging the petitioner from the aforesaid criminal case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the factual background of the case is that respondent no.2 lodged an FIR dated 16.12.2021 in Case Crime No.621 of 2021, under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, against the petitioner and the Managing Director of Passion Producer Company Ltd. It is alleged therein that during the course of service, the informant met the petitioner, who represented himself to be an authorized Branch Head of the said company, and thereafter persuaded the informant to open Recurring Deposit (RD) accounts in the company. Acting on such inducement, the informant opened two RD accounts in the year 2015, and started depositing amounts of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- respectively. However, upon maturity of the deposits, when the informant demanded repayment, the petitioner failed to make any payment. 4. It is further submitted that during investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of one Dinesh Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 08.03.2020, who stated that the petitioner had been working as an agent of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avinash Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Amitabh Kunal .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Passion Producer Company Ltd., which was subsequently closed down. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 409 IPC, and thereafter, the petitioner was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20075 of 2022. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter moved an application for discharge before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur on 16.05.2024, which came to be rejected vide order dated 24.02.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which too was dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2025. 6. Learned counsel has contended that the charge under Section 409 IPC is wholly unsustainable inasmuch as the petitioner was not in any fiduciary or trust-based capacity vis-à-vis the property alleged to have been collected from the informant. It is argued that the essential ingredients of Section 409 IPC — entrustment of property by a principal/employer and dishonest misappropriation or conversion thereof — are not satisfied in the present case. 7. It is thus submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are perverse and legally unsustainable, and the dismissal of the discharge application as well as the revision on the ground of being premature and not maintainable, is wholly erroneous and liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the petition contending that the impugned orders are well-reasoned and have been passed in accordance with law. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the material on record discloses allegations of inducement, collection of public money, and failure to return the same, which prima facie attracts the offences alleged. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and upon careful perusal of the record, this Court finds that both the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court have passed reasoned and speaking orders, which reflect due application of judicial mind. As discussed herein above, during investigation it has been established that the petitioner was Branch Head of the Passion Producer Company Ltd and he himself has stated in his petition that he acted as an agent in opening of the accounts of the investors, prima facie ingredients of Section 420, 409 IPC are satisfied. At this stage, A227 No. 10711 of 2025 2 this Court cannot embark upon a roving inquiry into the sufficiency of material or weigh the evidence, as such exercise falls within the exclusive domain of the trial court during the course of trial. No perversity, illegality is found in the impugned orders so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. September 10, 2025 A. Tripathi A227 No. 10711 of 2025 3 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad