Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10842-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1485 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jay Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Shishir Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The petition seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the First Information Report dated 17.02.2021 bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0080 of 2021, under Sections 406, 504, 506, 409 and 34 of I.P.C. lodged at Police Station- Hazratganj, District- Lucknow, lodged by opposite party no.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature and no offence is made out against the petitioner. In support of his case, he has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on 06.02.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. Nil of 2023, arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 13485 of 2023 (Lalit Chaturvedi and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another). 4. It is further submitted that petitioner is not a director or an employee of the company, namely, M/s Jaishakti Realcon Ltd. in as much as the petitioner never had any concern or relation with the said company in which the huge amount was transferred. 5. Learned A.G.A. strongly opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the name of the petitioner has been shown in the first information report and his role has been specifically stated in the said F.I.R. 6. He further submits that even if the amount is not transferred in the account of the petitioner or he is not a director or employee of the company, as per the allegations made in the F.I.R., he was also party to the entire transaction and it is on his persuasion also as the amount was given. 7. We have gone through the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and we have also repeatedly asked to counsel for the petitioner to explain as to why the name of the petitioner has been shown in the F.I.R., in reply of which, it is submitted by him that the petitioner is close to the persons who run the company and, therefore, his name is also given in the first information report. The said explanation in itself is not sufficient. Primafacie allegations in the F.I.R. clearly made out against the petitioner. The judgment of Lalit Chaturvedi's case (supra), which has been supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the facts of the said case are entirely different than the present case. In the present case, the amount was due on ground of business transaction. Thus, the dispute is of purely civil nature where the party was liable to pay the amount arising from business transaction. The petitioner has not explained at all as to why the amount was transferred to the company. There is no business transaction between the parties. Thus, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Some evidence before this Court to disbelieve the averments made in the F.I.R. From reading of the F.I.R., cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. 8. In the result, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench