HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11204 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Pankaj Verma, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama today on behalf of respondent No.4, which is taken on record. 2. By means of instant petition, the petitioner has raised a challenge to the FIR dated 09.11.2025 bearing FIR/Case Crime No.0473 of 2025 under Sections 420, 647, 468 & 471 IPC Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the averments made in the FIR which has been lodged by the complainant, it emerges that the complainant is only a 25 % shareholder in the company, namely, Nageshwar Nath Real Estate Private Limited. In the earlier FIR, which had been lodged by the complainant dated 26.06.2025, a copy of which Annexure-5 to the petition, it has specifically indicated that he is a 25% shareholder while the Smt. Binam Mishra, who is also an accused in the instant FIR alongwith the petitioner, is 75 % shareholder. 4. The contention is that even as per the allegations levelled in the FIR the accused including the petitioner are said to have connived in fraudulently having sold off more than their entitled shares in various houses and having remitted the amount in their joint account. 5. Contention is that there is a purely civil dispute as emerges from perusal Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sushil Kumar Singh, Janardan Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt. Pooja Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Others .....Respondent(s) of the said FIR, apart from the fact that although, it has been alleged that the accused has sold off the plots of the company on account of forgery being committed by one of the accused (not by the petitioner)etc. but there is nothing to indicate any forgery etc. having been committed rather the co- accused has only sold off the houses as per his share, and thus, it is a civil dispute which cannot be converted into criminal offence by the complainant. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA states that the investigation is still continuing. 7. Per contra, Sri Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 states that from the FIR itself, it emerges that the co-accused have sold off more than what they were entitled to sell and the amount has been deposited in the account of the petitioner also as well as in some other company belonging to the petitioner. 8. Be that as it may, the matter remains that the investigation is still going on and the specific allegation of forgery having been committed by the co- accused has still not emerged. 9. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till some credible or cogent evidence is found against the petitioner during the course of investigation. 10. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. 11. It is also provided that in case the petitioner does not cooperate in the said investigation it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the complainant to file appropriate application for vacation of this order. December 1, 2025 Reena/- CRLP No. 11204 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench