Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75265-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8791 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 01.02.2024 lodged in Case Crime No. 57 of 2024, under Sections- 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S.- Sikandra, District- Agra. Learned counsel for the petitioners informs that the petitioner no. 1, Rajendra Kumar Singh, has already been arrested. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners involve factual disputes and appraisal of evidence. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 at this stage. All the submissions made at the Bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings as well as charge- sheet of the aforesaid case is refused. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and on the request of counsel for the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, it is directed that in case the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 appear before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. However, in case, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. It is made clear that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Rohit (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.) (Siddharth, J.) Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad