HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20981 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Avneesh Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 4 is taken on record. Heard Sri Vinayak Mithal, the counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rakesh Pande, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avneesh Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent no.4 and the Additional Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. The counsel for the respondents have stated that the petition be disposed of without calling for a counter affidavit and on the basis of the documents filed alongwith the writ petition itself. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned First Information Report dated 06.06.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 670 of 2025, under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 I.PC., 1860, Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that from the recitals in the First Information Report itself no offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.PC. is made out against the petitioners as there is no plea of forging any document to deceive the first informant. It has been further argued that from the recitals in the first information report itself it is evident that the petitioners had told the first informant that there were some disputes regarding the plot pending at Ghaziabad which could be resolved and subsequently requested the first informant to himself make endeavours to get the aforesaid disputes disposed of. The disputes Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rishab Agrawal, Vinayak Mithal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditya Gupta, G.A. Gajendra Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) referred in the first information report relate to title and the rights of the petitioners over the plot given to the first informant for construction. It has been argued that the recitals in the first information report itself do not disclose any intention of the petitioners not to perform their part of contract. It has been further argued that no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out as there was no entrustment and there is no violation of any contract by the petitioners. It has been argued that the dispute is civil in nature and the first informant has the remedy in accordance with the contract executed between the parties or before the Civil Court. It has been further argued that for the aforesaid reason, the first information report is liable to be quashed. Rebutting the contention of the counsel for the petitioners, the A.G.A. and the counsel for respondents have argued that the petitioners had committed the offence under Section 420 IPC by misrepresenting to the first informant the nature of disputes pending at Ghaziabad and further had also committed offence under Section 406 IPC as they had taken money for getting the dispute resolved but failed to resolve the disputes. It has been argued that the act of the petitioners in not resolving the disputes despite taking payment for the same, in any case, amounts to an offence under Section 420 IPC. In the circumstances of the case and after considering the rival arguments of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in pursuance to the First Information Report dated 06.06.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 670 of 2025, under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 I.PC., 1860, Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad till submission of the police report under Section 193 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. September 17, 2025 Ranjeet Sahu CRLP No. 20981 of 2025 2 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad