Urmila Bind And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 24940 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 24940 ALL
Judgement Date : 15 September, 2023

Allahabad High Court

Urmila Bind And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 September, 2023

Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Vivek Kumar Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179022-DB
 
Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14606 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Urmila Bind And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devbratt Yadav,Ram Pratap Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 23.08.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0351 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Bardah, District- Azamgarh.

3. It is contended that the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2006 is not fabricated and that the same has been given effect to in the revenue record. The State has also filed an application for recall of this order for which the restoration application is still pending. It is also contended that the proceedings have been initiated on the complaint of the private individual.

4. It is further contended that there is absolutely no allegation in the FIR insofar as the petitioner no.2 is concerned and it is not his name which has been incorporated in the revenue records allegedly on the basis of forged and non existent order. Therefore at least against him, no offence at all whatsoever is made out.

5. The first information report has been lodged by the revenue authority upon receipt of information issued from the court which purports to have been passed the order dated 22.06.2006, that no such order was actually passed by it.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, we find that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are their defence, which cannot be looked into while dealing with a writ petition seeking quashing of a first information report.

7. Moreover, the allegations made in the First Information Report clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences and the allegations of manufacturing orders are serious in nature. Therefore, prayer of the petitioners to quash the First Information Report is completely misconceived and is rejected.

8. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to apply for bail/anticipatory bail.

Order Date :- 15.9.2023

Mohini