Pirasat And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5338 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7770 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Pirasat And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohd. Irfan
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Chandra Pal is the main accused in this case but he has not preferred this writ petition.

It is submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are marginal witnesses and petitioner No.4 is a bonafide purchaser. Petitioner No.3 having nothing to do in the matter. Gaurav Kumar was also a person who has purchased the property from Chandra Pal.

The facts go to show that all the petitioners have, in unison, prima facie committed the offence just it is not that the petitioners are marginal witness or brother, the fact go to show that that are several disputes and factual data goes to show that prima facie case under Section 420 IPC as alleged in the FIR being Case Crime No. 68 of 2022 has been made out. These are all questions of investigation.

Be that as it may, the disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, as well as the decisions in State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Ilahi, 2017 2 SCC 779, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Pankaj Jagshi Gangar, AIR 2022 SC 114, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588 (2010) 6 SCALE 767, 2010 Cr.L.J. 3844, do not permit us to entertain this petition.

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.6.2022

Manish Tripathi