Adesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5307 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7681 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Adesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Manvendra Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Gautam
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following prayers:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 12.05.2022, registered as Case Crime No.0198 of 2022, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC., Police Station Bhongaon, District Mainpuri.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no.2 not to arrest/harass the petitioner in pursuance to impugned First Information Report dated 12.05.2022, registered as Case Crime No.0198 of 2022, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC., Police Station Bhongaon, District Mainpuri.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the FIR does not disclose any criminal act or mens rea of the petitioner. The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the said property, the pedigree of Savitri Devi, Mahesh and Ramesh is also there and father of Savitri Devi who was co-sharer of the property wanted to sell the property.

4. Litigations are also pending on the either-side though there are allegations against Savitri Devi. The First Information Report mentions the name of the petitioner, civil litigations may be pending between the parties that itself will not be a ground to quash civil proceedings.

5. The disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are supported in a view by the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Arun Bhandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 801, decided on 10th January, 2013, just because there is an order of status quo filed a civil litigation, the petitioner cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser. The FIR clearly spells out that offences have been made and the allegations against the petitioner go to show that there is an overt act on his part. There is impingement on part of the petitioner.

6. This petition is being devoid of merits and is dismissed.

Order Date :-21.6.2022

A.N. Mishra