Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73649-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9067 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Mahobiya Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh,Veerendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R, dated 22.9.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0368 of 2025, under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, at Police Station Medical College, District Meerut and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against him is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence. He has further submitted that truthfulness of allegations and establishment of guilt take place, when the investigation is done or trial proceeds. Probability, reliability or genuineness cannot be looked under Art.226 of the Constitution. The FIR can only be quashed in a writ jurisdiction, if the FIR does not discloses commission of offence and that too prior to framing of charges. As such it is submitted that no interfere is required in the matter. 5. Correctness or otherwise of the F.I.R. allegation need not be examined by us, at this stage, inasmuch as all these issues can be determined at the stage of investigation/trial. Since the First Information Report, prima facie, discloses commissioning of cognizable offence, the prayer made to quash the First Information Report is, therefore, declined in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315, as also in latest judgment in Criminal Appeal No.843 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10913 of 2023 (Directorate of Enforcement vs. Niraj Tyagi and others) connected with Criminal Appeal No.844 of 2024. 6. The writ petition is disposed of leaving it open for the petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 7.5.2025/Mukesh Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad