Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35655-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5175 of 2025 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Singh,Apoorv Dev Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhishek Mishra,Divya Rai,Falak Kausar Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned F.I.R. has been registered for the offences under the Act, which has already been repealed i.e. U.P. Regulation of Money- Lending Act, 1976. 3. It is further argued that even if it is assumed that allegations for an offence under Section 316(2) B.N.S., 2023 have been levelled in the impugned F.I.R., yet no case is made out on a plain reading of the contents of the F.I.R. against the petitioner. Therefore, it is a fit case for interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State, on the basis of instructions, has stated that though the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as regards repeal of U.P. Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976 is true, yet the allegations levelled against the petitioner for other offences do make out a cognizable offence against the petitioner. As such, the argument that no cognizable offence is made out on a plain reading of the F.I.R. is wholly misconceived and untenable. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has also pointed out that the petitioner, in order to give a different colour to the controversy for which the police authorities were approached for a criminal action, obstructed the said process on the strength of a legal notice, which clearly speaks of a teacher–taught relationship between the petitioner and the complainant's son, which relationship the petitioner has disclosed. The petitioner, who is holding the post of teacher, has breached his place by misconducting himself in the performance of his duties and the relationship, which he holds with student. 6. Having regard to the totality of allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R., we are not convinced that a cognizable offence is not made out against the petitioner. As to whether all the offences are made out or not is a subject matter of trial, but it cannot be said that the F.I.R., on a plain reading of its contents, stands belied by adopting a prudent approach to appreciate the same. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed without prejudice to the statutory remedy of anticipatory bail/ regular bail available under the statute. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 17.6.2025 cks/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench