Dinesh Anand and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15470 of 2023 Petitioner :- Dinesh Anand And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sati Shanker Tripathi,A.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Tripathi,A/V0310 Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶1Heard Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Yogendra Kumar Mishra, holding brief of Shri V.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Shri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents.

¶2The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned F.I.R. dated 11.09.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 0601 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners has purchased plot no. 3, falls in Municipal Record No. 240/251 Mauja Mathura Bangar, Pratap Nagar, West, Mathura falling in Khasra No. 365, ad-measuring 35/75 having total area 243.83 sq. meter from one Smt. Meera Yadav wife of Vijay Kumar Yadav, who got power of attorney registered in their name from Shaym and Om Prakash. He further submits that Shyam and Om Prakash are real brothers and the property in question was their parental property. He next submits that dispute is primarily of civil in nature.

¶4Learned counsel for the complainant submits that property in question actually belongs to one Bachchu Singh in whose premises Meera Yadav and her husband Vijay Kumar Yadav, was tenant, and they fraudulently got registered the sale deed in their favour by impersonation.

¶5Learned AGA submits that investigation is in progress and there are serious allegations of forgery and cheating against the petitioners.

¶6Be that as it may, without going into the truthfulness of the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties, prima-facie, there are allegation of transfer of land without having right, title and interest in the subject property. On plain reading of the impugned FIR, commission of cognizable offence has been made out.

¶7The inherent power of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is permitted to be resorted to when documents relied upon by the accused demonstrate that no prima facie offence is made out on the face value of those materials and not otherwise, and if it is allowed to happen it would ensue disastrous and startling consequences. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to bring his case within the parameters compiled by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.

¶8The present petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 31.10.2023 Ujjawal High Court of Judicature at Allahabad