HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22671 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mayank Maurya, Advocate on behalf of Kamlesh Kumar, who is the complainant of the instant case, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 17.9.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 309 of 2025, under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., Police Station-Kalan, District- Shahjahanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that even taking into consideration the entire allegations made in the first information report on its face value, no offence, whatsoever, is disclosed against the petitioner and, as such, the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned AGA as well as counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the said prayer and has submitted that after detailed enquiry, the impugned first information report has been lodged and an amount of Rs. 11,23,750/- and 5,11,500/- is alleged to have been swindled in the said transaction. He has next submitted that from the allegation made in the first information report, prima facie offence, complained of is clearly disclosed against the petitioner and, as such, the first information report cannot be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raja Ullah Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mayank Maurya Mukesh Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315and in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024, Directorate Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and others. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that after detailed enquiry, the impugned first information report has been lodged and an amount of Rs. 11,23,750/- and 5,11,500/- is alleged to have been swindled in the said transaction and in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the relevant law cited by the learned AGA and the fact that impugned first information report discloses cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the impugned first information report cannot be quashed. 7. The prayer for quashing of the first information report is therefore, refused. 8. However, in case the petitioner files an application for anticipatory/regular bail before the trial court, his bail application be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 9. With these observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. October 14, 2025 KU CRLP No. 22671 of 2025 2 (Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad