Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4534-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 467 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rairavnath @ Ramesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaikaran Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material placed on record. 2. This petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking following main relief:- "(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the first information report dated 25.12.2024 lodged by the opposite party No.4 in Case Crime No.350 of 2024 under Section 319(2), 318(4), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of I.P.C., Police Station- Sareni, District-Rae Bareli." 3. In view of the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that a false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner by the respondent No.4 alleging therein that the respondent No.4 had deposited an amount of Rs.100 and Rs.300 per day as Recurring Deposit (RD) in Veall Mutual Benefit Nidhi Limited, Branch Civil Line, Raebareli (A finance company) for one year and thereafter, the amount deposited as well as the interest was converted into three fixed deposits and the said finance company issued the deposit confirmation certificate in favour of the respondent No.4 on 28.09.2020. Soon thereafter, the said finance company seized its business in 2021 and the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- of the respondent No.4 in the said finance company was lost. It has been alleged by the respondent No.4 that the petitioner was the agent of the said finance company and he induced him to deposit his valuable savings in the said finance company which has ran away with his money. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that his father was one of the agent of the said finance company and he died on 05.07.2024 due to old age and the petitioner has no concern at all with money deposited by the respondent No.4 or the said finance company. 5. It has been further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent Nos.1 to 3 has pointed out towards the contents of the FIR wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner although was not the agent of the said finance company but he had made out to the respondent No.4 that he was the agent of the said finance company and on his inducement, the money was deposited by the respondent No.4 in the said finance company. 7. We have gone through the contents of the impugned FIR and find that prima facie a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, therefore, prayer made in this writ petition cannot be granted to the petitioner. 8. In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed. [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Sangeeta Chandra, J.] Order Date :- 23.1.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench