Allahabad High Court

AMIT KUMAR CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The Court held that a prima facie case exists against the applicant and therefore the application to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC is dismissed.

Summary

The applicant Amit Kumar Chaudhary filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash criminal case No.3089 of 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC relating to alleged short‑supply of paddy. He contended that the investigation was inadequate, that he was not a government employee under the U.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1965, and that no prima facie case existed. The State argued that the FIR, witness statements and material collected established a prima facie case. The High Court examined the material, noted that the dispute concerned facts and defence which cannot be decided at the stage of a Section 528 application, and relied on Supreme Court precedents. Finding that a prima facie case was made out, the Court refused to quash the proceedings. Consequently, the application under Section 528 was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal proceedings in case No.3089 of 2025 should be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicant under the alleged IPC offences.
Whether the investigating officer failed to conduct a proper investigation warranting quashment.
Whether the applicant is a government employee under the U.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1965 for the purpose of the offences.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
U.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1965

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
prima facie case
investigation adequacy
government employee status
Cooperative Society Act
IPC offences
magistrate cognizance

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 48750 of 2025

Amit Kumar Chaudhary
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shri Kant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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
NA528 No. 48750 of 2025
2

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
3

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
4

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

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…