Sukhvinder Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8237 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sukhvinder Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharm Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Neeraj Kumar Mishra,Trilok Kumar Trivedi Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and Shri Neeraj Kumar Mishra, Advocate, who has filed caveat on behalf of the private respondent.

¶2This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party No. 4 against the petitioners at Police Station-Mohammdi, District-Kheri on 18-09-2023, U/S 419,420,467,468,471,504,506 I.P.C vide Crime No. 0610/2023, contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to arrest and harass the petitioners on the basis of the impugned F.I.R."

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations in the First Information Report relate to a fraudulent sale deed and said to have been executed by the father of the informant in favour of the petitioners in the year 2001, which was cancelled by the Civil Judge, Junior Division Mohammadi Kheri by his order dated 24.12.2004.

¶4It has been submitted that there was no reason for the petitioners to approach the informant and to threat him to take over the land which belongs to him after the sale deed was cancelled by the competent court in the year 2004.

¶5This court has perused the First Information Report and also heard learned counsel for the informant. It has been orally argued by the learned counsel for the informant that although the sale deed dated 29.3.2001 was cancelled by the competent court on 24.12.2004 they have taken loan on the property now illegally which belongs to the informant, from a bank by mortgaging the said property.

¶6This court having gone through the First Information Report finds no good ground to show interference.

¶7The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Madhu High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench