HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21642 of 2026 Court No. - 46 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard Mr. Janardan Prasad Patel, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 & 3. 2. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner - Aman Rai has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 20.07.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Shashank Tripathi and registered as Case Crime No.0265 of 2026, under Section 316 (5) B.N.S., Police Station Barhaj, District Deoria. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner in challenge to the impugned F.I.R. submits that petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. It is then contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the day, date and time of the occurrence column of the FIR, no particular details have been mentioned. As such, the impugned F.I.R. is highly belated. 5. It is then next contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of oral complaint made by the creditor. He therefore submits that once the complainant himself has not appeared before the Company to support the alleged complaint, there was no occasion before the Company to lodge the impugned F.I.R. He would thus submit that the impugned F.I.R. is therefore malicious and thus liable to be quashed by this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. Learned A.G.A. submits Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dhani Ram Pal, Janardan Prasad Patel Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Aman Rai .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) that it is an admitted fact that petitioner is an employee of the Company namely, RBL Finserve Pvt. Ltd. As such, petitioner is an agent of the Company, therefore, covered under Section 409 I.P.C. i.e. Section 316(5) B.N.S. In view of above, no illegality can be attached to the criminal prosecution of petitioner under Section 316(5) B.N.S. The other arguments raised by the learned counsel for petitioner in challenge to the criminal prosecution of petitioner himself, it is contended by the learned A.G.A. that the same relate to the disputed defence of petitioner, which cannot be examined at this stage. Whether the petitioner has misappropriated the amount mentioned in the body of the F.I.R. is a question of fact which can be examined threadbare only during the course of investigation. 7. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 submits that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of petitioner. 8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 & 3 and upon perusal of record, we find that the impugned F.I.R. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Upon perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R., a prima facie case is made out against petitioner. Since at this stage it is only a prima facie which is to be seen, we, therefore, decline to entertain present writ petition. 10. It is accordingly dismissed. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. September 16, 2026 ss CRLP No. 21642 of 2026 2 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad