Dismissed¶17

Narendra Bansal v. State of Up and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026CRLP/10119/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR — Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10119 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided May 5, 2026 — FIR dated 01.04.2026, Case Crime No. 0266 of 2026, Sections 316(2), 352, 351 (2) BNS, P.S. Kotwali City, District Bulandshahr — petitioner Narendra Bansal vs. State of U.P. and others; first informant Smt. Tanya Verma — plea of purely civil dispute and abuse of process rejected — RTGS payment of Rs. 24,50,000 urged by first informant's counsel — writ petition dismissed, interim order vacated.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the interim order, if any, stands vacated. ¶17

Narendra Bansal Vs State of Up and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10119 of 2026

¶2

Narendra Bansal

¶3

.....Petitioner(s)

¶4

	Versus
State Of Up And 5 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: :	Mandeep Singh, Sani Kumar G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 49

¶6

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

¶7

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.

¶8

2. Perused the record.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

CRLP No. 10119 of 2026

¶13

¶14

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.

¶15

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel representing first-informant respondent4, 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.

¶17

It is accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶19

May 5, 2026 Israr

¶20

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Narendra Bansal v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Bansal v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Alok Kumar Singh vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nisha and Another vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr Hilaluddin vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Suman Srivastava Vs State of Up and 6 Others

Pradeep @ Guddu vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Nisha and Another vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others