Amit Kumar @ Amit Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 43150 of 2026
Amit Kumar @ Amit Dubey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 76
A.F.R.
Reserved on 06.10.2026
Delivered on 26.10.2026
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sageer Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Manoj
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Anoop Trivedi,
learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh,
learned AGA appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 and 2.
2. The instant application has been preferred for seeking quashing of
impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Farrukhabad, through which charges have been framed against
the applicant in connection with Case No.02 of 2022 (State vs. Anurag and
Another) under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, arising out of Case
Crime No.382 of 2021, P.S. Mohammadabad, District- Farrukhabad.
3. Prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that the said FIR dated 29.09.2021
being Case Crime No.382 of 2021 has been lodged at the behest of opposite
party no.2 against the applicant and one co-accused in pursuance to sections
419, 420 IPC, is the consequence of the enquiry report
no.ST/A/direction/2021, dated 27.09.2021, District Magistrate Farrukhabad,
letter no.3029/Arms clerk/report-2021-22, dated 18.09.2021 and police
superintendent Fatehgarh letter no.ST/A/SP-8/2021, dated 26.09.2021,
respectively, wherein it has been alleged that applicant applied for grant of
arm licenses pertains with double barrel 12 bore gun, N.P. 32 bore revolver
and NP 315 bore rifle and in the all those 3 applications pertains to double
barrel 12 bore gun, NP 32 bore revolver and NP bore 315 rifle, the date of

NA528 No. 43150 of 2026
2
birth mentioned as 20.04.1970, 15.07.1976 and 10.03.1982, respectively;
and notary affidavit filed in support thereto, dated 15.04.1999, 29.04.2002
and 06.09.2007 respectively. Likewise, there is allegation against co-accused
Anurag Kumar @ Anurag Dubey and those allegations pertain NP Bore 315
Rifle, double barrel 12 bore gun and NP 32 bore therein, the date of birth
mentioned 15.06.1975, 01.05.1983 and 02.09.1977 respectively and notary
affidavit filed in support thereto, dated 15.04.1999, 06.09.2007 and
29.04.2002.
4. In pursuance to the above allegations made in the FIR, detail inquiry has
been conducted by concerned Investigating Officer, which culminated into
submission of charge-sheet dated 01.01.2022 against the applicant and
another co-accused in pursuance to sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC,
upon which cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court
concerned vide order dated 06.01.2022 and thereafter charges have been
framed by learned court concerned vide order dated 16.07.2025, which
impugned the instant application.
5. Thereafter, the trial proceeding was said to have been commenced and the
prosecution, in order to prove the charges, has led evidence of eight
witnesses as PW-1 Divakar Prasad Saroj (informant/opposite party no.2),
PW-2 Pram Chandra, PW-3 Balraj Bhatti, PW-4 Beer Bhan Yadav, PW-5
Navneet Kumar, PW-6 Lal Ji Yadav, PW-7 Iqbal Anjum and PW-8 Arun
Pratap Singh Gaur, respectively and the examination in chief of PW-9 has
been recorded on 03.07.2026 and next date 09.10.2026 is fixed for its cross-
examination.
6. While challenging the impugned order dated 16.07.2026, learned counsel
for applicant raised a legal ground that the applicant and co-accused Anurag
Kumar @ Anurag Dubey may not be jointly charged and tried together,
since the allegation in respect of above-referred arm licenses which were
issued by concerned authorities to the applicant and co-accused Anurag
Kumar @ Anurag Dubey, are on different dates and time and also not issued
in a same transaction, even though the applicant and co-accused Anurag
Kumar @ Anurag Dubey arraigned as accused in the same first information
report, since they are arms licenses holder in individual capacity.
7. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that the accused persons
(applicant herein and co-accused) are not coming under the category of what

NA528 No. 43150 of 2026
3
persons may be charged jointly, which has been defined under section 223
Cr.P.C. For ready reference section 223 Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein below:-
"223. What persons may be charged jointly. - The following persons may
be charged and tried together, namely:-
(a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the
same transaction;
(b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or
attempt to commit, such offence;
(c) persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the
meaning of section 242 committed by them jointly within the period of
twelve months;
(d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the
same transaction;
(e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion,
cheating, or criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving
or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property
possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such
offence committed by the first-named persons, or of abetment of or
attempting to commit any such last-named offence;
(f) persons accused of offences under sub-sections (2) and (5) of section
317 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or either of those sections in
respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by
one offence;
(g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter X of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of
any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of
abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence; and the provisions
contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply
to all such charges:
Provided that where a number of persons are charged with separate
offences and such persons do not fall within any of the categories
specified in this section, the Magistrate or Court of Session may, if such
persons by an application in writing, so desire, and if he or it is satisfied
that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is
expedient so to do, try all such persons together."

NA528 No. 43150 of 2026
4
8. In support of his legal submissions and the averments made in the
affidavit filed in support of instant application, learned counsel for applicant
has relied upon relevant paras of the following judgements, which are as
under :-
8A.
Para-8 of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2293 of 1996 (Rashid
, decided on 08.08.1996 is read as under :-
Aziz vs. State of U.P.)
" 8. Another legal point which may be noticed here is that according to the
report of the Inquiry Committee there are 346 such persons who have
obtained arms licences in a fraudulent manner. These persons are
different people living in different areas of the city or villages in the
District of Allahabad and most of them have no connection of any kind
whatsoever with each other. As per the prosecution case, they either
singly or collectively in a group entered into a criminal conspiracy with
the then arms clerk and by procuring forged entries in the Arms Register
managed forged arms licences in their favour. The arms licences purport
to have been issued on different dates over a period of several years. At
any rate this is certain that all the 346 persons did not jointly enter into a
conspiracy with the arms clerk and procured arms licences at one point
of time or Within quick succession and within such period which may
form one transaction. Section 223, Cr.P.C. enumerates the category of
persons who may be charged and tried together. Sub-section (a) thereof
mentions persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of
same transaction and Sub-section (d) thereof mentions persons accused of
different offences committed in the course of same transaction. Sub-
section (2) of Section 219, Cr.P.C. provides that offences are of the same
kind when they are punishable with same amount of punishment under the
same section of the Indian Penal Code or of any special or Local law.
Sub-section (1) of Section 220, Cr.P.C. provides that if in one series of
acts so connected together as to form the san transaction, more offences
than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with and
tried at one trial for every such offence. The illustrations to this sub-
section mentioned in the Code throw light as to when a series of acts will
form the same transaction. Sections 220 and 223 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, are similar to Sections 235 and 239 of the Old Code of
1898. In State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao AIR 1963 SC
1850, it was held that the expression "same transaction" occurring in
Clauses (a) and (d) of Section 239 as well as that occurring in Section
235(i) ought to be given the same meaning according to the normal rule
of construction of Statutes. Though the investigation is yet to be
completed but from the contention advanced by the learned State Counsel

NA528 No. 43150 of 2026
5
it appears to us that different persons whose names are mentioned in the
list while procuring the allegedly forged arm licences cannot be said to
have committed the crime in the course of the same transaction. The
crime would have been committed by them in conspiracy with the then
arms clerk and other persons in the concerned office at different time and
on different dates. Prima facie, it appears to us that in view of the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure all these 346 persons
cannot be charged or tried together."
8B. Paras-11, 12 & 13 of Criminal Appeal No.333 of 1987 (Balbir vs.
State of Haryana), 2000 AIR SC 11 are as under :-
" 11. According to Shri D.D. Thakur the case against the appellant and
the case against Guria should have been consolidated together for a joint
trial. He made on endeavour to show that two cases in respect of the
murder of one person could be brought within the ambit of Section 223 of
the Code (which corresponds to Section 239 of the old Code of 1898). As
per that provision, all persons falling under any one of the seven
categories enumerated therein can be charged and tried together. Out of
those seven categories enumerated in the section we need not even advert
to those categories indicated with placitum (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) of the
Section as they are not relevant in this context. We would, therefore,
extract clauses (a) and (d) in Section 223 as under:
"The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:-
(a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the
same transaction;
(d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the
same transaction."
In both the aforesaid clauses the primary condition is that persons should
have been accused either of the same offence or of different offences
"committed in the course of the same transaction". The expression
advisedly used is "in the course of the same transaction". That expression
is not akin to saying "in respect of the same subject matter" It is pertinent
to point out that the same expression is employed in Section 220(1) of the
Code also (corresponding to Section 235(1) of the old Code). The
meaning of the expression "in the course of the same transaction" used in
Section 223 is not materially different from that expression used in
Section 223(1). It is so understood by this Court in State of Andhra
Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr., [1964] 3 SCR, 297.
The following observation in the said judgment is contextually quotable:
"The series of acts which constitute a transaction must of necessity be

NA528 No. 43150 of 2026
6
connected with one another and if some of them stand out independently,
they would not form part the same transaction but would constitute a
different transaction or transactions. Therefore, even if the expression
"same transaction" alone had been used in S.235 (1) it would have meant
a transaction consisting either of a single act or of a series of connected
acts. The expression `same transaction' occurring in cls. (a), (c) and (d)
of S.239 as well as that occurring in S,235(l) ought to be given the same
meaning according to the normal rule of construction of statutes."
12. For several offences to be part of the same transaction, the test which
has to be applied is whether they are so related to one another in point of
purpose or of cause and effect, or as principal and subsidiary, so as to
result in one continuous action. Thus, where there is commonality of
purpose or design, where there is continuity of action, then all those
persons involved can be accused of the same or different offences
"committed in the course of the same transaction,"
13. But if in one case the accused is alleged to have killed a person
without any junction with the accused in the other case, then it cannot be
treated as the same offence or even different offences "committed in the
course of the same transaction". If such two diametrically opposite
versions are put to joint trial the confusion which it can cause in the trial
would be incalculable. It would then be a mess and then there would be
no scope for a fair trial. Hence the attempt to bring the two cases under
the umbrella of Section 223 of the Code has only to be foiled as
untenable."
8C. Para Nos.9, 11, 13 and 22 of Mamman Khan vs. State of Haryana,
2026 (6) SCC 192 are as under :-
" 9. The prosecution case proceeds on the basis of an overarching
conspiracy said to involve all the accused persons. The charge sheet
reflects a consolidated investigative approach, founded upon common
evidence, such as call detail records, electronic communications, video
footage, witness statements, and forensic reports. It is undisputed that the
prosecution relies upon largely common witnesses and interlinked
evidence against all the accused.
11. In the present appeals, the challenge has been confined to the
segregation of the appellant's trial. The appellant submits that the
offences alleged against him arise out of the same transaction as those
involving the co-accused, and hence, by virtue of Section 223 Cr.P.C., a
joint trial ought to have been conducted. It is not the prosecution's case
that the acts attributed to the appellant are distinct or severable.

NA528 No. 43150 of 2026
7
According to the appellant, conducting a separate trial would result in
serious prejudice to him and impair his right to a fair trial. 11.1. On the
other hand, the respondent contends that segregation was necessitated by
the mandate of this Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay (supra), which
requires expeditious disposal of criminal cases involving elected
representatives. It is further stated that the direction was purely
procedural and intended to obviate delay caused by the abscondence of
certain co-accused, while ensuring that the trial of the appellant proceeds
in a timely manner.
13. The statutory scheme under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is
clear. Sections 218 to 223 lay down the framework governing the joinder
and separation of charges and trials. Section 218 embodies the general
rule that each distinct offence shall be tried separately. However, the
Code carves out specific exceptions to this rule in Sections 219 to 223,
where joint trials are permissible in the interests of justice.
13.1. In particular, Section 223(d) provides that persons accused of
different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be
charged and tried together. The legislative intent underlying these
provisions is three-fold:
(i) to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, (ii) to avoid the risk of
conflicting judgments on the same evidence, and (iii) to promote judicial
economy while ensuring fairness to the accused. For ease of reference,
the relevant provisions are set out below:
"218. Separate charges for distinct offences –(1) For every distinct
offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge,
and every such charge shall be tried separately:
Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so
desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to
be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number
of the charges framed against such person.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions
of Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223.
219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together –
(1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind
committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of
such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be
charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding
three.
(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same
amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code

NA528 No. 43150 of 2026
8
(45 of 1860) or of any special or local laws:
Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable
under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed
to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under Section
380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of
the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an
offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such
an attempt is an offence.
220. Trial for more than one offence – (1) If, in one series of acts so
connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than
one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried
at one trial for, every such offence.
(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach
of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-
section (2) of Section 212 or in sub-section (1) of Section 219, is accused
of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the
commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of
falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial
for, every such offence.
(3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more
separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which
offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be
charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.
(4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or
themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different
offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one
trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any
offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect Section 71 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).
221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed – (1) If a
single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of
several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused
may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and
any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged
in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences.
(2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it
appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he
might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may
be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed,

NA528 No. 43150 of 2026
9
although he was not charged with it.
222. When offence proved included in offence charged – (1) When a
person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a
combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence,
and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not
proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not
charged with it. (2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts
are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the
minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an
attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately
charged. (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a
conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the
initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been
satisfied.
223. What persons may be charged jointly – The following persons may
be charged and tried together, namely:
(a) Persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the
same transaction;
(b) Persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or
attempt to commit, such offence;
(c) Persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the
meaning of Section 219 committed by them jointly within the period of
twelve months;
(d) Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the
same transaction;
(e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion,
cheating, or criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving
or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property
possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such
offence committed by the first-named persons, or of abetment of or
attempting to commit any such last-named offence;
(f) persons accused of offences under Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) or either of those sections in respect of stolen
property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence;
(g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any
other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of
abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence; and the provisions
contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply

NA528 No. 43150 of 2026
10
to all such charges:
Provided that where a number of persons are charged with separate
offences and such persons do not fall within any of the categories
specified in this section, the Magistrate [or Court of Session] may, if such
persons by an application in writing, so desire, and if he [or it] is
satisfied that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby,
and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together.
22. In the present case, the evidence against the appellant is identical to
that against the co-accused. Separate trials would necessarily involve
recalling the same witnesses, resulting in duplication, delay, and the risk
of inconsistent findings. The High Court, in affirming the segregation
order, failed to appreciate these consequences and confined itself to the
discretionary language of section 223 Cr.P.C without evaluating whether
the factual circumstances justified such segregation. Therefore, we hold
that the segregation of the appellant's trial, without any legally
recognized justification, is unsustainable in law and violative of the
appellant's right to a fair trial under Article 21."
8D. Para no.30 of Parvinder Singh vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026
AIR SC 3290 as under :-
30. The issue of application of the procedure pertaining to a complaint
under the CrPC (now BNSS) to proceedings under the PMLA is no longer
res integra, as has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in the
decisions of Tarsem Lal (supra), Yash Tuteja (supra) and Kushal Kumar
Agarwal (supra). Though we find that in the instant case the said issue
has not been specifically raised either before the Trial Court or the High
Court, we are willing to consider the same, being a pure question of law.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicants further
submitted that the alleged criminal history credited against the applicant has
already been explained in para- 30 of the affidavit filed in support of instant
application. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant lastly
submitted that the above legal grounds is a settled law and the same can be
raised at any stage before pronouncement of final judgement and the said
procedure adopted by learned trial court surely attracts the possibility of
failure of justice, through which material prejudice can be cause to the
applicant. On the aforesaid premise, the impugned order is liable to be
quashed by this Court.
10. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of

NA528 No. 43150 of 2026
11
opposite party nos.1 and 2 vehemently opposed the prayer sought through
instant application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for
applicant and supported the impugned order passed by learned trial court by
way of submitting that it is the highly advanced stage of trial to challenge the
impugned order on purely technical ground and without demonstrating any
actual prejudice, wherein nine out of ten prosecution witnesses have already
been examined and cross-examined, since the same would defeat the object
of criminal justice and unnecessarily derail the trial.
11. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that non-
mentioning of the exact date and time in the charge is purely technical and
does not got to the root of trial; the applicant has neither pleaded nor
demonstrated any actual prejudice caused to him, nor has it been shown as to
how he was misled in the conduct of his defence.. In respect of the issue
regarding non-mentioning of exact date and time in the charge, learned
Additional Advocate General has relied upon judgement rendered by the
Apex Court in Chittranjan Das vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC
1696 , wherein it has been specifically considered the question whether a
charge is rendered invalid merely because a particular date and time have not
been stated with mathematical precision and the Apex Court held that the
absence of particular date or time does not automatically render the charge
invalid.
12. It is also submitted that applicant has participated in the trial and has
cross-examined nine prosecution witnesses, which itself demonstrated that
applicant understood the prosecution case and was capable of effectively
defending himself; now, the applicant cannot seek to convert the alleged
omission of exact date and time into a ground for quashing the charge
without demonstrating any actual prejudice or failure of justice.
13. Learned Additional Advocate General next submitted that the objection
of applicant regarding joint trial is wholly misconceived on account of the
fact that two accused persons are alleged to have played different roles or
that their individual acts were committed separately does not, by itself,
render the entire trial void. The question whether the acts constitute one
transaction or separate transactions is substantially dependent upon the facts
and evidence of the case. In support of the above submission made by
learned Additional Advocate General, he relied upon judgement rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Sushil Kumar Tiwari vs. Hare Ram Sah

NA528 No. 43150 of 2026
12
@ Others, 2025 INSC 1061 , wherein the issue of joint trial and procedural
irregularity relating to section 223 Cr.P.C. has been considered and the Apex
Court recognized that even assuming a procedural irregularity in joint trial,
such irregularity does not automatically invalidate the trial; the question of
actual prejudice and failure of justice remains material.
14. The same principle is also supported in
Nasib Singh vs. State of Punjab
& Another, 2022 (2) SCC 89 , wherein the Apex Court considered the
concept of "same transaction" and the circumstances relevant for
determining whether offences can be tried together. The question depends
upon the facts and circumstances, including proximity of time and place,
unity of purpose or design and continuity of action. Thus, the question
cannot be determined merely by making a technical assertion that the
accused persons allegedly acted at different points of time or at different
places.
15. It is also submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that
question of fact whether the acts attributed to the applicant ultimately
constitute one transaction, separate transaction, common design, conspiracy,
or otherwise is substantially dependent upon appreciation of the evidence on
record. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken as a mini-trial while
exercising inherent jurisdiction under section 528 BNSS. There is no actual
prejudice or failure of justice established in the entire proceeding of instant
trial till date and as such the present case does not warrant interference under
section 528 BNSS. On the aforesaid premise, the impugned order is totally
sustainable in the eye of law and the instant application is liable to be
rejected.
16. After having rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the
parties along with the judgements relied upon in respect of their legal and
factual submissions as well as upon perusal of entire material available on
record, this Court is of the view that although the applicant and another co-
accused implicated in same transaction, but the transaction of offence is
related to number of co-accused, who preferred false affidavit for obtaining
arm license and as such all the applicants who preferred applications for
seeking fire arm license cannot be said to be accomplished in transaction of
same crime and as such the prayer as made through instant application for
segregating trial of the applicant from another co-accused is purely justified
as per the judgement pronounced by the Apex Court in case of
Parvinder

NA528 No. 43150 of 2026
13
Singh (supra) and Mamman Khan (supra) , which clearly defines the
power mandated as per the provisions contained under section 223 Cr.P.C.
and as such the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed in the above-
mentioned case is not sustainable in the eye of law.
17. In view of above, impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, through which charges have been
framed in connection with Case No.02 of 2022 (State vs. Anurag and
Another) under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, arising out of Case
Crime No.382 of 2021, P.S. Mohammadabad, District- Farrukhabad, is
hereby quashed .
18. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands accordingly.
allowed
October 26, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad