HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21859 of 2025 Court No. - 46 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 17.01.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0011 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Soraon, District Prayagraj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., prima facie no offence, complained of, is disclosed against the petitioner and as such, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that perusal of the record shows that petitioner is the mastermind of the entire transaction and he, through an imposter, had got the sale- deed executed. 5. Learned AGA for the State has further submitted that from the allegations made in the F.I.R., prima facie offence is clearly disclosed against the petitioner, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. can not be quashed in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ilma Naz, Mohammed Iftekhar, Wakeel Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Mujibur Rahman @ Saif .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024, Directorate Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and others. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is the mastermind of entire transaction and he, through an imposter, had got the sale-deed executed and further, keeping in mind the fact that impugned F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the impugned F.I.R. can not be quashed, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused. 7. However in case, the petitioner files an application for anticipatory/regular bail before the appropriate court, his bail application shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of. September 24, 2025 Nadim CRLP No. 21859 of 2025 2 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad