Allahabad High Court
Ramakant Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 24 July, 2025
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42582-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6573 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramakant Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashank Tilhari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
(1) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. who appears for the Opposite party nos.1, 2 & 3.
(2) In view of the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to the Opposite party no.4 is dispensed with.
(3) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following main prayers:-
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 12.06.2025 lodged by the Opposite party no.4 against the present petitioner relating to Case Crime No.0319/2025, under Sections 319(2), 318,(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the B.N.S. at Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Ayodhya (as contained in Annexure No.1).
b) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case."
(4) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his Grandfather had got certain property in District Ayodhya and his name was recorded as tenure holder in 1955, thereafter, his father's name was recorded in the Khatauni on the same land. The petitioner's name was mutated after the death of his father and copies of Khataunis of the Year 1396 Fasli to 1401 Fasli and 1402 Fasli to 1406 Fasli have been filed as Annexure-5 to the petition. The petitioner was in possession of such property but in later years because of mistake in computerization the name of the petitioner disappeared and he filed an application under Section 33/38 of the U.P. Revenue Code for correction of entries. In the meantime, one Gauri Shankar filed Revision before the Board of Revenue challenging the the order dated 16.02.1955 issued by the Court of Tehsildar Sadar, Faizabad, in favour of the Grandfather of the petitioner. The petitioner was made a Respondent in the said Revision which was rejected by the Board of Revenue on 27.11.2024. In pursuance of the order dated 27.11.2024, the petitioner filed an application on 21.01.2025 before the Court with a prayer to issue Parwana Amaldaramad and in pursuance of his application Parwana Amaldaramad was issued on 11.03.2025 by the Registrar of the Revenue Board and the name of the petitioner was updated in the Revenue Records on the basis of Parwana Amaldaramad so issued.
(5) Later on, on 29.05.2025 an order was passed by the Tehsildar Sadar saying that Parwana Amaldaramad was forged and the name of the petitioner was removed from the Revenue Records. The petitioner challenged such orders before this Court in Writ-C No.5952 of 2025 which is pending. Now the F.I.R. has been lodged on 12.06.2025 mentioning therein some letter issued by the Registrar Board of Revenue on 11.03.2025 directing lodging of F.I.R. and implicating the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had forged Parwana Amaldaramad.
(6) The counsel for the petitioner says that he had no reason to forge the Parwana Amaldaramad.
(7) We find from a perusal of the impugned F.I.R. that some property of the Gram Sabha Bagh Bijaisi, Pargana Haveli Awadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya, was being affected by orders passed in Revision No.4580 of 2024 and some inquiry was conducted and then the allegation of forgery has been made.
(8) This Court has perused the F.I.R. which discloses commission of cognizable of offence against the petitioner, hence, no interference is required in the matter.
(9) The writ petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.7.2025 N.PAL