Allahabad High Court
CRLP/10089/2026 of SURAJ JUMANI @ SURAJ AMARLAL @ AMARLAL SURAJ Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS on 4 May 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10089 of 2026 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J. Heard Mr. Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition at length and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned AGA for the State.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10089 of 2026 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J. Heard Mr. Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition at length and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned AGA for the State. This petition has been filed for quashing the FIR dated 20.12.2025 in Case Crime No. 303 of 2025 under Section Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in Court today. Let it be taken on record and numbered by the office. A perusal of the impugned FIR shows that the petitioner has allured the informant into investing in stocks of certain companies on the representation that he is the part of a certain company called Bluechip Commercial Broker LLC based in Dubai. He projected his business to be that of a share broker and allured the informant into investing a sum of Rs. 22 lacs, his hard earned money. Initially, the informant received some profits but then soon stopped in the year 2024. Next, the company office was found locked and the petitioner and all other connected with the affairs, disappeared. Prima facie, the allegations in the FIR disclose a case of classical cheating. It is not our province, in this petition, to consider the petitioner's disputed defence based on the fact that he has a commercial agreement with the main accused Ravindra Nath Singh and his role was marginal as well as bona fide. These are matters which have to be thrashed out during investigation and if it does not lead to exculpation for the petitioner, tested at the trial. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pratik Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Suraj Jumani @ Suraj Amarlal @ Amarlal Suraj .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
No interference is required with the impugned FIR in our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed. May 5, 2026 C. MANI CRLP No. 10089 of 2026 2 (Tarun Saxena,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad