Allahabad High Court
NARENDRA BANSALversusSTATE OF UP AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and a prima facie case, so the writ petition seeking its quash was dismissed.
Summary
Petitioner Narendra Bansal filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quash of FIR dated 01.04.2026, alleging that the matter was a civil dispute improperly converted into criminal prosecution under IPC sections 316(2), 352 and 351(2). The State and the first informant opposed, contending that a cognizable offence was disclosed and a prima facie case existed, including evidence of a non‑recovered payment of Rs. 24,50,000. The Court examined the pleadings, found that the FIR established a cognizable offence and that the petitioner had not rebutted the prima facie case. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the criminal proceeding and dismissed the writ petition. The interim order, if any, was vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under sections 316(2), 352 and 351(2) of the IPC can be quashed on the ground that the dispute is purely civil.
- Whether a prima facie case exists to sustain criminal prosecution against the petitioner.
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition to interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 316(2), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- civil dispute
- criminal prosecution
- FIR quash
- abuse of process
- prima facie case
- breach of trust
- Indian Penal Code
- writ petition
- dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10119 of 2026
Narendra Bansal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mandeep Singh, Sani Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mandeep Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A.
representing State-respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate, who has put
in appearance on behalf of first informant-respondent- 4 by filing his Vakalatnama
today in Court which is taken on record.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner- Narendra Bansal has approached this Court by means of present
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition, challenging the impugned FIR dated 01.04.2026 lodged
by first informant-respondent-4, Smt. Tanya Verma and registered as Case Crime No.
0266 of 2026, under Sections 316(2), 352, 351 (2) BNS, Police Station- Kotwali City,
District-Bulandshahr.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner in challenge to the impugned FIR submits that
criminal prosecution of petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR cannot be sustained.
According to learned counsel for petitioner dispute between the parties is a purely
civil dispute which has been dragged into criminal litigation. It is then contended by
the learned counsel for petitioner that in case there is any civil liability against the
petitioner then remedy lies to first informant-respondent- 4 to file a suit for recovery.
Since a purely civil dispute has been dragged into criminal litigation, therefore, the
present criminal prosecution of petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR amount to an
abuse of process of Court. As such the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this
Court.
5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1 to 3 and the learned
counsel representing first-informant respondent- 4 have vehemently opposed the
present writ petition. They submit that since upon perusal of impugned FIR
commission of cognizable is clearly established, therefore no inference is warranted in
present writ petition. it is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that apart from
above, prima facie case is made out against petitioner, therefore no interference is
CRLP No. 10119 of 2026
2
warranted by this Court in present writ petition. At this stage, only a prima facie case
has to be seen. It is further contended by Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, the learned counsel
representing first-informant respondent- 4 that payment of amount to the tune of Rs.
24,50,000/- is proved from the record as the said payment was made through RTGs.
He therefore, submits that in view of above, the failure on the part of present petitioner
to return the said amount, amounts to breach of trust. Since no amount has been paid
by the petitioner till date the same reflects dishonest intention right from inception. On
the edifice of above submissions, it is thus urged by the the learned counsel
representing first-informant respondent- 4 that no interference is warranted by this
Court in present writ petition.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome
the same.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. representing
State-respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel representing first-informant respondent-
4, upon perusal of record and considering the objections raised by the learned A.G.A.
as well as the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent in opposition to
present writ petition, which also stands borne out from record, we are not inclined to
entertain the present writ petition. As a result, the present writ petition fails and is
liable to be dismissed.
8. It is accordingly, dismissed.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
May 5, 2026
Israr
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ISRAR AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…