Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88098-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10005 of 2025 Petitioner :- Liu Yuan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Bhardwaj Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA-1 for State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned FIR dated 30.07.2023 being Case Crime No.0348 of 2025 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, Section 14 (a), (b) & (c) of Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 14 (A), (B) & (C) of Foreigners Act, 1946, P.S. Sector 63, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to impugned FIR. 3. At the very outset, learned AGA-1, on the instructions, states that in the instant matter since lodging of impugned FIR, there is absolute non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner. In the instant matter, the police report had been prepared and submitted on 16.01.2025. As such, no interfere is required in the instant matter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged totally on false allegations just to harass the petitioner. The other accused namely Liu Rui had preferred Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 CrPC No.10746 of 2024 (Liu Rui v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was allowed by learned Single Judge on 06.01.2025. As such it is submitted that the petitioner being on similar footing is also entitled for indulgence. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner and even chargesheet has also been filed, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. 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. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 23.5.2025 SP/ Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad