AMAN RAIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

       CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21642 of 2026

Aman Rai
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          :    Dhani Ram Pal, Janardan Prasad Patel
Counsel for Respondent(s)          :    G.A.

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
                                                                                             CRLP No. 21642 of 2026
                                                                       2

                                    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
                                                                       (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad