HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10872 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 A.G.A. for the respondents-State. No notice is being issued to the respondent No.4 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed. 2. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the FIR dated 06.11.2025 as FIR No.0844 of 2025 under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352 and 351(3) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from perusal of the FIR itself and the allegations made therein, it emerges that the petitioner's son namely Aditya Singh, who was working under the respondent No.4 as Advisor, is said to have embezzled an amount of Rs.13 Lakh and odd of the Company by issuing fake receipts etc., to the customers. 4. The petitioner in the capacity of the father of the petitioner has been roped in although there is no specific allegation against him. 5. This Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 had required the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions in the matter. 6. Leaned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions sent by Shri Raj Kumar Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar states that earlier Shri Dayanand Singh was working in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prashant Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Dayanand Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the company but he left it in the year 2023. It is also indicated that the investigation is proceeding against him. It is further indicated that the money embezzled pertains to between April, 2024 and August, 2025. 7. Once even as per the instructions the petitioner is said to have left the services in the year 2023 and embezzlement, as indicated above, pertains to between April, 2024 and August, 2025 i.e. subsequent to the date the petitioner has left the company of the respondent No.4, consequently prima facie complicity of the petitioner does not emerge in the episode at this stage. 8. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents authorities not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till any credible evidence emerges against the petitioner. 9. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation. In case of non cooperation, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order. November 20, 2025 prateek CRLP No. 10872 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench