/10937/2025 of ANIL SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND OTHERS on 19 November 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Shashank Harshit Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Irfan Khan, leaned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the First Information Report dated 10.10.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 00486 of 2025 under Sections 318 (4), 336 (3), 338 & 340 (2) of the B.N.S, 2023, at Police Station- Ram Nagar District- Barabanki, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 4 were initially in a partnership of running of 'Dhaba'. The said relationship turned bad which initially resulted in the respondent no. 4 lodging the First Information Report against the petitioner vide First Information Report dated 24.02.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 0102 of 2023 under Sections 420 & 406 of I.P.C. Copy of the said First Information Report is annexure 3 to the writ petition. It is argued that the said First Information Report resulted in a final report being filed by the authorities on 21.09.2023, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition.

4. Not having succeeded in the said attempt, now the impugned First Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Pratap Singh, Anuj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Abdur Rub, Irfan Khan Anil Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)

Information Report has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 contending that the petitioner has forged the signature of the respondent no. 4 and has had the security deposit transferred in his account.

5. Contention is that the repeated First Information Reports are being lodged by the respondent no. 4 on account of the business relationship of the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 having failed and the aforesaid modus operandi being adopted in order to pressurize the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 states that on account of the fraud which has been committed by the petitioner, the amount of security deposit has been transferred in the account of the petitioner.

7. Learned AGA states that the investigation is still going on.

8. However, for the purpose of the investigation, the report of the FSL would be required pertaining as to whether the application which was allegedly given by the petitioner for transfer of the security deposit to his account contains the fake signatures of the respondent no. 4 or not inasmuch as till date the Investigation Officer hasneither taken any signature nor has sent to FSL for matching of the same.

9. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents-authorities not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till credible evidence emerges during the course of the investigation and is found against the petitioner.

10. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation. In case of non cooperation, the benefit of this order shall not be available to the petitioner. November 19, 2025 Pachhere/- CRLP No. 10937 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench