HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11334 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 to 3. 2. No notice is being issued to the respondent No.4 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed. 3. By means of this petition, the petitioners have a challenge to the FIR dated 28.10.2025 vide Case Crime No.0308 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(3) of B.N.S., 2023 (old Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC) Police Station Bijnore, District Lucknow. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that bare perusal of the impugned FIR would indicate that one Sri Chandrika has lodged the impugned FIR contending that two of his plots of land have been fraudulently sold off and purchased by the petitioners herein, although, he had himself executed the sale deeds. 5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners are: (A) that the land does not belong to Sri Chandrika (B) that the land has been acquired by the Awas Vikas Parishad in the year 2010. (C) that Sri Chandrika has received the entire payment of sale consideration Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh, Santosh K. Singh Raghuvanshi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Nageshwar Chaudhari And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Others .....Respondent(s) of around Rs.20,00,000/-in cash. (D) that Sri Chandrika has given the possession of the land to the petitioners and on the said land construction is going on. 6. No other ground has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. The aforesaid grounds as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners are found to be patently fallacious and misconceived. 8. The reason is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement in the case of Muskan vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others; 2025 INSC 1287 has held as under: "We are of the view that the High Court has erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing an FIR, it must be shown that there exists no prime facie case against the accused persons." (emphasis by the Court) 9. Likewise the Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty- (2022) 16 SCC 703 has held that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law, while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR. 10. From a perusal of the impugned FIR, it emerges that the petitioners alongwith several others have indulged in an incident. The petitioners have also been specifically named in the incident and F.I.R. as well. 11. Further, in case it is the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the land belongs to the Awas Vikas Parishad, consequently, there would not have been any occasion for the sale deed to have been executed by Sri Chandrika and Sri Chandrika to have received the said payments. Even otherwise, the payments have been made in cash and once as per the allegations as levelled in the FIR, it emerges that an imposter had been put up in place of Sri Chandrika, consequently, merely because such payments have been made, the same would not be indicative that the said payments CRLP No. 11334 of 2025 2 have been received by Sri Chandrika. 12. Considering the aforesaid, no case of interference is made out. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. December 2, 2025 Reena/- CRLP No. 11334 of 2025 3 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench