JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri. Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Syed Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the FIR dated 11.04.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 78 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, I.P.C., P.S. Dilari, District Moradabad. 3. It is urged by learned Senior Advocate that petitioner is working as Senior Branch Manager at Gajraula Branch of Moradabad District Co-operative Bank Limited. On 11.04.2018, FIR was lodged against the petitioner and other persons by the fourth respondent, Deputy General Manager, Collection and Inspection, Dilari, District Moradabad, wherein, serious allegations have been made against petitioner and other subordinate staff of the bank. On enquiry, dismissal from service of all the employees including that of the petitioner has been proposed to the Board. That apart, allegations against the petitioner constitute commission/omission of offence that while working as Branch Manager, petitioner along with the other employees of the bank, including, clerk, cashier and the staff and Manager of schools and colleges, including, employees of the Minority Welfare Department, had syphoned off and embezzled the schlorship of the students, consequently, the bank employees were suspended and proceeded against in disciplinary proceedings, in which they were found guilty. It is further alleged that on enquiry the village Pradhan informed that the account holders are neither resident of the village nor the photographs match with any person of the village. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false, baseless, mala fide and frivolous; FIR is highly belated and the allegation is based on the report dated 23.11.2015. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the assertions and the prayers made in the writ petition and submits that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is purely factual which would be gone into during investigation. The ingredients of the offence is made out against the petitioner, therefore, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the backdrop of the allegations made in the FIR 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. 8. 6. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the backdrop of the allegations made in the FIR 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. 8. The dismissal of the writ petition, however, will not preclude the petitioner from filing an application for bail before the court below in terms of the decisions rendered in Amrawati and another v. State of U.P., (2004) 57 AllLR 390 as well as Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC) : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2178). 9. In the event, such an application is filed, it is expected that the court below shall decide/dispose of the application in terms of Amrawati, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh and Brahm Singh & others v. State of U.P. & others, (2016) 7 ADJ 151 : (2016 (6) ALJ 141), strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made by us in this order.