Allahabad High Court
SANDHYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- TARUN SAXENAMUNIR
Holding
The Court held that there is no case for quashing the impugned FIR and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Sandhya, filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR that alleged she, along with associates, defrauded an informant of Rs. 1,50,000 by promising doubled returns through cryptocurrency investments and issuing a fake passbook. The petitioner contended that she merely hosted a meeting at her house and had no active role in the alleged cheating, arguing that the matter required further investigation. The Court examined the petition and held that the allegations in the FIR, if proven, satisfy the ingredients of cheating and therefore there is no ground to quash the FIR at this stage. It noted that the petitioner remains free to seek anticipatory bail or regular bail if required. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the order was communicated to the investigating police officers.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR alleging cheating and fraud can be quashed on the ground that the petitioner had no active participation.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief other than quashing, such as anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- cheating
- fraud
- cryptocurrency
- FIR
- quashing of FIR
- anticipatory bail
- criminal miscellaneous writ petition
- investigation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9283 of 2026
Sandhya
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate
on behalf of the State.
2. The allegation in the First Information Report ('FIR' for short) is
about deceiving the informant and taking a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by the
petitioner and her associates for the purpose of investment in
cryptocurrency and other institutions, where the money would be
doubled. In order to perfect the fraud, a fake passbook was also issued to
the informant. It is alleged that a similar cheating was done with other
natives of the village as well, mentioned in the FIR.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that all that happened is
that those who took money from the informant held a meeting at her
house. She had no role to play there. This is a disputed defence, which the
petitioner offers. It can be verified during investigation; else, the
ingredients of cheating are made out, subject to proof. This is a case
which requires investigation, and if vindicated during investigation, the
petitioner might have to defend herself at the trial.
CRLP No. 9283 of 2026
2
4. No case for quashing the impugned FIR is made out.
5. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to pursue her remedy of
anticipatory bail/bail.
6. Subject to the above remarks, this petition is dismissed.
7. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur and the Station House
Officer, Uruwa Bazar, Gorakhpur, both through the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gorakhpur.
(Tarun Saxena,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
May 5, 2026
I. Batabyal/S.K. Srivastava
Digitally signed by :-
ISHAN BATABYAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…