NASRIN AKHTAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13472 of 2026

Nasrin Akhtar And Another
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                      :   Ritesh Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                 :   G.A.

Court No. - 82
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

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
                                                                                          NA528 No. 13472 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    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.


                                                                                  (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Mustaqeem.




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad