Harsh Baliyan vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

Harsh Baliyan vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conditional interim protection: no coercive action against the applicant till the next date of listing, subject to extension of Rs.1 lac to opposite party no.2 within a month and filing of a separate affidavit apprising the Court of receipt; notice to opposite party no.2; matter to be put up as fresh on 09.02.2026 (final consideration deferred).

Issue for consideration

Whether further proceedings on the charge sheet dated 07.02.2025 and the cognizance order dated 11.02.2025 in Case No.12048 of 2020 (arising from Case Crime No.06 of 2020, Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC) should be stayed against the applicant, given his contention that there is no material showing he was Director of MIP Cab company (Bike Yatra), that the allegation lies against the company's owner Rajesh Khantval who signed the agreement with opposite party no.2, and that the dispute is purely commercial and does not attract criminal liability.

Court's answer

Interim protection granted: till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case, subject to the condition that Rs.1 lac be extended in favour of opposite party no.2 within a month, and after extending the same amount the receipt thereof be apprised to this Court by way of filing a separate affidavit.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found the matter to require consideration, directed that notice be issued to opposite party no.2, and ordered the matter to be put up as fresh on 09.02.2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Court No. 75) — Interim order dated January 8, 2026 in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 30802 of 2025, Harsh Baliyan v. State of U.P. & Anr. (connected with Application U/s 528 BNSS No.30788 of 2025): On the applicant's contention that the FIR and investigation records disclose no material showing him to be a Director of MIP Cab company (Bike Yatra), that the allegation targets the company's owner Rajesh Khantval who signed the agreement with opposite party no.2, and that the dispute is purely commercial in nature and does not attract criminal liability, the Court held the matter to require consideration, issued notice to opposite party no.2, and directed that, till the next date of listing, no coercive action be taken against the applicant in the case arising from the charge sheet dated 07.02.2025 and cognizance order dated 11.02.2025 in Case No.12048 of 2020 (State vs. Rajesh Khantwal and other), registered as Case Crime No.06 of 2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, Police Station NOIDA Sector-58, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Ist/Judicial Magistrate — subject to the applicant extending Rs.1 lac to opposite party no.2 within a month and filing a separate affidavit apprising the Court of the receipt; matter to be put up as fresh on 09.02.2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30802 of 2025

Harsh Baliyan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kant Dubey, Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 75

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Connect with Application U/s 528 BNSS No.30788 of 2025.

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

Present petition has been filed to stay the further proceeding of charge sheet dated 07.02.2025 as well as cognizance order dated 11.02.2025 passed in Case No.12048 of 2020 (State vs. Rajesh Khantwal and other) registered as Case Crime No.06 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B, IPC, Police Station- NOIDA Sector-58, District Gautam Buddha Nagar pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Ist/Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar.

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that from perusal of FIR as well as other records collected during investigation, there is no material to show that the applicant was Director of MIP Cab company (Bike Yatra) which persuaded the opposite party no.2 and other investors to invest money for getting return in lieu of renting out the bike. It is also submitted that allegation is against the owner of company Rajesh Khantval, who has signed the agreement with the opposite party no.2 and dispute is purely commercial in nature, which does not attract criminal liability.

Per contra, learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to opposite party no.2.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case subject to condition that Rs.1 lac shall be extended in favour of opposite party no.2 within a

NA528 No. 30802 of 2025

2

month and after extending the same amount in favour of opposite party no.2, the receipt of the same shall be apprised to this court by way of filing separate affidavit.

Put up as fresh on 09.02.2026 .

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

January 8, 2026 Rakesh

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad