Nanhey @ Nanhe vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32836 of 2025

¶3

Nanhey @ Nanhe

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Neeraj Kumar Bhargava	Bhargava,	Shivangi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 77

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant sought permission to make correction in the prayer clause of instant application by way of mentioning the prayer for quashing of entire proceeding which was inadvertently left at the time of filing of instant application.

¶9

Prayer so made is allowed. Necessary incorporation shall be carried out during course of the day.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

4.Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash order dated 22.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, CD-I^st /ACJM, Rampur arising out of Case Crime no. 228 of 2020 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, at PS- Swar, District Rampur. Further prayer has also been made to quash/stay the entire criminal proceeding of Case no. 585 of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Nanhe) arising out of Case Crime no. 228 of 2020 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, at PS- Swar, District Rampur.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that present FIR has been lodged at the behest of opposite party no. 2/concerned Gram Vikas Adhikari, alleging therein that applicant had fraudulently received Old Age Pension to the tune of Rs.6,500/- in his account. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up on dated 08.02.2021. Applicant moved

¶13

NA528 No. 32836 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before learned court concerned but the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 22.7.2025.

¶16

It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is a poor and illiterate person. He never applied for Old Age Pension but someone misused his Adhaar card and pass-book due to which the said amount has been credited in his account. As soon as he received the information regarding credit of aforesaid amount as alleged in the FIR, he did not withdraw the same, rather he deposited the same in the account of Director, Samaj Kalyan, State of U.P. The challan for deposition of said amount is appended as Annexure no. 4 to the instant application. It is submitted that once applicant has already refunded before the authority concerned, the amount alleged to be received by him, no occasion arises in favour of prosecution to pursue the instant criminal proceeding which is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, learned Magistrate while deciding the discharge application also failed to consider this aspect and wrongly and arbitrarily passed the impugned order dated 22.7.2025.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application but could not dispute the argument that once entire amount has already been refunded, what occasion arises in favour of prosecution to pursue the impugned criminal proceeding.

¶18

After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that the allegation through narration of the FIR is that illegally and fraudulently certain amount to the tune of Rs. 6,500/- in shape of Vridha Awastha Pension (Old Age Pension) has been received by the applicant but later on, upon information that certain amount has been received directly in the account of the applicant, the same has been refunded in favour of Director, Samaj Kalyan, State of U.P. Although, learned AGA opposed the prayer but did not disputed the fact that the amount whatsoever has been received in the account of the applicant, the same has already been refunded to the account maintained in State Bank of India in favour of Director, Samaj Kalyan, State of U.P. and no payment has been received or extended thereafter in the account of the applicant and as such for the reasons

¶19

NA528 No. 32836 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

aforesaid, at present no case is made out against the applicant for dragging him into unwarranted criminal litigation.

¶22

Entire proceeding of Case no. 585 of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Nanhe) arising out of Case Crime no. 228 of 2020 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, at PS- Swar, District Rampur is hereby set aside in respect of applicant herein.

¶23

The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed accordingly.

¶24

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶25

November 25, 2025

¶26

Shaswat

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nanhey @ Nanhe v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanhey @ Nanhe v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawabuddin vs State of U.P. and Another

Firasat Alias Firasat Ali and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gunjan Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Jayant Sen and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Hariom Alias Hariom Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another