Dismissed¶17

Sandhya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026CRLP/9283/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sandhya v. State of U.P. and others, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 9283 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided May 5, 2026 (J.J. Munir and Tarun Saxena, JJ.). Writ petition for quashing of FIR alleging cheating of Rs. 1,50,000/- on pretext of doubling money via cryptocurrency investment and issuance of a fake passbook; Court held ingredients of cheating made out subject to proof, petitioner's no-role plea a disputed defence for investigation/trial; petition dismissed with liberty to seek anticipatory bail/bail; order to be communicated to SSP Gorakhpur and SHO Uruwa Bazar through CJM Gorakhpur. No statutes or precedents cited in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to pursue her remedy of anticipatory bail/bail; main prayer for quashing of FIR refused. ¶17

Sandhya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9283 of 2026

¶2

Sandhya

¶3

.....Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of U.P. and others

¶6

.....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Sanjeev Kumar Singh : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 47

¶9

HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

CRLP No. 9283 of 2026

¶14

¶15

4. No case for quashing the impugned FIR is made out.

¶16

5. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to pursue her remedy of anticipatory bail/bail.

¶17

6. Subject to the above remarks, this petition is dismissed .

¶18

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.

¶19

(Tarun Saxena,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)

¶20

May 5, 2026

¶21

I. Batabyal/S.K. Srivastava

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandhya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Bharti and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dauli and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nankram vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Kanchan Patel and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Roshan Yadav vs State of U.P. and 9 Others