Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22810-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3062 of 2025 Petitioner :- Surajpal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikram Shah Sisodia Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitionerm Sri V.S. Sisodia, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A for the State respondents. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 26.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 698 of 2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120B IPC, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that present criminal prosecution has been lodged simply to harass the petitioner. It is next submitted that co-accused Naresh Kumar was only accountable for keeping the amount of the firm and since 2021 salary of the petitioner is due out of which the informant has paid only Rs. 25,000/- in the account of wife of the petitioner and the balance amount has not been paid till date and just to avoid to pay the salary of the petitioner present criminal prosecution has been lodged. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence and pointed out that forged receipts of Rs. 25 lacs were prepared and money was obtained from the customers of the informant, who is a wholesale cement dealer. 5. We find that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner including other persons and admittedly the petitioner was servant of the informant and the arguments that are being raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are the defence of the petitioner, which cannot be considered for the purpose of quashing of the first information report. 6. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Lalit Shukla Digitally signed by :- LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad