Allahabad High Court
Ram Kripal Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. ... on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3305 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ram Kripal Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijai Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Shri Vijay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Pavan Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Shri Utkarsh Kumar, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf respondent No.3 and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 29.03.2023, lodged by the respondent No.3 in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0099 of 2023, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC, Police Station - Wazirganj, District - Lucknow. A further prayer for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioners on the basis impugned FIR has been made.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have sold their own land to the opposite party No.3 but he has been falsely implicated in the impugned F.I.R. It has further been submitted that as per the prosecution story the opposite party No.3 had given some money to the petitioners for buying the plot of land in Village Mouda, Pargana - Bijnor, Tehsil- Sarojini Nagar, District- Lukcnow. However, the said plot of land actually belongs to the Gaon Sabha and not to the petitioners.
This Court, from a bare perusal of the F.I.R., has found that the cognizable offence has been made out. The petitioners had no intention to sell the land but they deliberately made out to the opposite party No.3 that the land belong to them.
After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned F.I.R., we are of the opinion that the impugned F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence against the petitioners, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R. or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner.
The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.4.2023 ML/-