Satyakam Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Satyakam Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners in pursuance of the FIR till filing of the charge sheet; petitioners to cooperate in the investigation, failing which the Investigating Officer or the complainant may file an application for vacation of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned FIR dated 07.11.2025 (FIR/Case Crime No. 0389 of 2025, Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich, under Sections 406, 420, 468, 327, 506 and 504 IPC) should be quashed.

Court's answer

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR till filing of the charge sheet.

Ratio / Principle

It does not emerge from the State's instructions that the petitioners caused any injury to the victim; the criminal history of the petitioners stands explained in the petition.

Key takeaways

The petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation.ratio¶22
In case the petitioners do not cooperate in the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the complainant to file an appropriate application for vacation of this order.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11340 of 2025 (Abdul Moin and Babita Rani, JJ.), decided December 4, 2025: Satyakam Pal and another v. State of U.P. and others. Petitioners sought certiorari to quash FIR/Case Crime No. 0389 of 2025 dated 07.11.2025, Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich, under Sections 406, 420, 468, 327, 506 and 504 IPC. Counsel contended gross delay (incident allegedly of March 2016) and that Section 327 IPC was invoked only to add gravity since no hurt was caused to the complainant or any victim. Learned AGA, on instructions of Sri Suresh Mani Mishra, Senior Sub-Inspector dated 29.11.2025, stated the investigation was ongoing and indicated the petitioners' criminal history. The Court disposed of the petition, directing that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the FIR till filing of the charge sheet, provided they cooperate in the investigation; on non-cooperation the Investigating Officer or complainant may seek vacation of the order. Notice to opposite party no.4 was dispensed with.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11340 of 2025

Satyakam Pal And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Brij Mohan Sahai, Amar Singh : G.A.

Court No. - 11

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for respondents no.1 to 3.

In view of proposed order, notice to opposite party no.4 is hereby dispensed with.

This petition seeks issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 07.11.2025 bearing FIR/Case Crime No. 0389 of 2025, under Sections 406, 420, 468, 327, 506 and 504 IPC, Police Station- Payagpur, District- Bahraich.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that from perusal of the impugned FIR it emerges that the petitioners have threatened the complainant and others apart from the fact that they have got executed a registered sale deed.

The contention is that besides the aforesaid, the impugned FIR lodged on 07.11.2025 alleges about an incident which is alleged to have taken place in March, 2016 and there is gross delay in lodging of the FIR. The other aspect of the matter is that apart from Section 327 of IPC, the other Sections of IPC which have been invoked against the petitioners, all carry a sentence of up to seven years with the exception of Section 327 of the IPC which pertains to voluntary causing hurt.

CRLP No. 11340 of 2025

2

The contention is that from perusal of the impugned FIR, it does not emerge that the petitioners have caused hurt to the complainant or any other victim and as such it is apparent that Section 327 of the IPC has only been invoked in order to add gravity to the offences as levelled against the petitioners.

On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions sent by Sri Suresh Mani Mishra, Senior Sub-Inspector, Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich, dated 29.11.2025 states that the investigation is still going on and has also indicated about the criminal history of the petitioners.

Apart from the fact that the criminal history has been explained in the petition, it does not emerge from the instructions that the petitioners have caused any injury to the victim.

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioners in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR till filing of the charge sheet.

Needless to mention that the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation.

It is also provided that in case the petitioners do not cooperate in the said investigation it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the complainant to file appropriate application for vacation of this order.

(Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.)

December 4, 2025 A. Katiyar

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench