Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Umesh Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10235 of 2022
Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aalok Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,R.P.S. Chauhan
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA. for the State respondents and Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appears as intervenor.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 29.5.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 165 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Sambhal, District Sambhal and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
As per the prosecution story setup in the First Information Report, a sale-deed was executed by the co-accused Smt. Sheela Devi and the petitioner in favour of nominated Sinchpal by the Executive Engineer, Madhya Ganga Nahar Garhmukteshwar, Hapur in respect of disputed property bearing Gata Nos.210 & 212, situated in Village Chaukani, Tehsil & District Sambhal on a sale consideration of Rs. 39,60,000/- and Rs. 14,40,000/- respectively. It is also alleged that it has brought into the notice during the mutation proceeding that both the accused persons fabricated false Khatauni by concealing the High Court's order and grab the money of the State Government. Consequently, the first information report is lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance upon the order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad in favour of the petitioner which was challenged in Writ-B No.35025 of 2011 (Kapil Kumar and others Vs. D.D.C. Moradabad and others) and the said order was stayed till the next date of listing i.e. 28.7.2011 by this Court vide order dated 15.7.2011. Thereafter, the aforesaid petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 3.4.2015, but at no point of time, the interim order was extended. Even though vide order dated 21.5.2015 the aforesaid writ petition was restored but the interim order was not extended. Lateron, Smt. Prabha Devi and others including the petitioner filed execution case for executing the order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad in which District Magistrate, Sambhal passed an order on 8.2.2013 as well as 12.6.2012. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, another Writ-B No.66782 of 2012 (Kapil Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed before this Court, in which an interim order was granted to the petitioners therein vide order dated 19.12.2012. Thereafter, the said petition was also dismissed in default vide order dated 3.4.2015 and the interim order was not extended. Consequently, a restoration application was filed by the petitioners therein which was allowed and the petition was restored but at no point of time, the interim order was again extended.
Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2018 SC 2039, the stay granted by the competent court are not deemed to be extended after more than six months unless and until it is extended for the reason specifically given by the competent court and as such in this backdrop, there was no restraint order and the property has already been mutated in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the property was sold in favour of the department by the petitioner and once an objection is being raised by the aggrieved parties then the first information report has been lodged by the department, which is subject matter of challenge in the present matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in this backdrop states that the department and the petitioner have entered into compromise and accordingly, a total sale consideration amounting to Rs.31,99,000/- along with interest was returned to the department concerned. The same has also been brought on record as Annexure-8 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the informant vide a letter dated 14.7.2022 has informed to the concerned investigating officer that the grievance of the department is already redressed and the consideration amount has been repatriated to the department concerned.
Sri R.P.S. Chauhan who has entered appearance on behalf of Kapil Kumar, who lodged the complaint to the department regarding the alleged transaction, has vehemently contended that even though much emphasis has been placed upon the compromise entered between the parties and the department but till date the petitioners have not approached the competent court/registry office for revocation/recancellation of the sale-deed which was allegedly executed in favour of the department. He further submits that till date, the said exercise has not been done by the petitioner, therefore, no indulgence is required in the matter.
Confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the compromise dated 14.7.2022 definitely the petitioner would approach the competent court/registry office within reasonable time for revocation/recancellation of the sale-deed. So far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned, in the light of the FIR the same is already redressed and the department itself has communicated the investigating officer for not taking any further action in the matter.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and with the consent, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the investigating officer to proceed in the matter but certainly taking into account the letter dated 14.7.2022 sent by theSinchpal, Madhya Ganga Nahar Nirman Khand-13, Garhmukteshwar, Hapur (U.P.) appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition and compromise dated 14.7.2022 appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
For a period of two months, the petitioner shall not be arrested pursuant to aforesaid FIR, provided he cooperates with the investigation in question.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022
M. Tarik
