HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20813 of 2025 Court No. - 42 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit and short counter affidavit filed today in Court be kept on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents and Sri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the first informant. 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the First Information Report dated 30.08.2025 which had given rise to Case Crime No. 0780 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., Police Station - Khurja Nagar, District - Bulandshahr. 4. On a bare perusal of the allegations in the first information report, it is evident that the first informant was made to meet one Shiv Kumar who was the land owner and on the basis of the assurance given by Rahul Sharma, the petitioner in the instant case, the first informant had agreed to purchase a plot being Plot No. 966 Minjumla of Khasra No. 618. The area to be purchased was around four bighas of Village Kapna, Tehsil Khurja, District Bulandshahr. The entire property was to be purchased by the first informant's wife for Rs. 26,00,000/-. Upon the assurance given by the petitioner, Rahul Sharma, the first informant had transferred on 14.12.2022 from the account of his wife, Seema Sahgal a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to one Abhilash Sharma, brother of the first informant. Thereafter, the first informant on 12.01.2023 again on the assurance given by the petitioner, Rahul Sharma, had got transferred Rs. 1,00,000/- in the account of the brother of the petitioner, Abhilash Sharma. Thereafter, once again on the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Gupta, G.A. Rahul Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) assurance given by the petitioner, Rahul Sharma, on 21.07.2023 Rs. 2,00,000/- were transferred in the account of the seller Shiv Kumar. Still further, on the assurance given by the petitioner, Rahul Sharma, on 17.08.2023 from the account of the wife of the first informant Rs. 10,00,000/- were transferred to the account of the wife, Anuradha Sharma, of the petitioner. It has further been alleged that on 08.07.2024 another sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- were transferred but there is no mention in the first information report with regard to the payee's name. Thereafter, on 21.10.2024 from the account of the petitioner himself Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 4,50,000/- were paid to the account of one Sachin Sharma, another brother of the petitioner. On 19.04.2024 by UPI Rs. 90,000/- were transferred once again to the account of Sachin Sharma. Subsequently, Rs. 95,000/- again were transferred to another account on the assurance of the petitioner, Rahul Sharma. In this manner, the first informant had paid to Rs. 26,85,000/- to the petitioner's family members. He had also paid a certain amount to the actual seller, Shiv Kumar. Upon, however, coming to know that the sale-deed had been executed in the name of the petitioner's wife, Anuradha Sharma, the first information report was lodged towards. 5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's intention was fair and there was nothing mala fide in it. In fact, the petitioner and the first informant were having a business relation and therefore the amounts were being transferred by the first informant to the accounts of the petitioner and his family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore states that no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. was made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a purely civil matter had been given the colour of criminality and the petitioner ought to have taken recourse to the filing of a civil suit. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the first informant, however, has informed the Court that there is no business transaction which was going on between the petitioner and the first informant. If any sale had taken place other than the sale with regard to the Plot No. 966 Minjumla then it was a separate transaction altogether and it had nothing to do with the case at hand. Learned counsel appearing for the first informant states that when the sale had take place in the name of Anuradha Sharma then definitely a case was made out under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. The case was thus to be investigated into for the purposes of cheating. Learned counsel appearing for the first informant CRLP No. 20813 of 2025 2 states that when the money was taken there was nothing delivered to the petitioner in exchange and only on the dishonest assurances of the petitioner, the money was paid. 7. We have perused the first information report which prima facie discloses cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash first information report otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315. 8. Under such circumstances, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. October 8, 2025 M.S. Ansari CRLP No. 20813 of 2025 3 (Achal Sachdev,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad