Allahabad High Court
Kalka And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83543-DB
Reserved On-23.04.2024
Delivered On-09.05.2024
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19327 of 2022
Petitioner :- Kalka And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Mahendra Pratap Yadav
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth J.,)
1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner; Sri S.S. Yadav, holding brief of Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and learned AGA for State respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 24.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 0358 of 2022 under sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Police Station- Kurara, District - Hamirpur.
3. On 21.12.2022 the following interim order was passed:-
"The supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri Mahendra Pratap Yadav, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.4 (informant).
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 24.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No.0358 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kurara, District Hamirpur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of Ram Ratan namely Kallu died. At the time of death of his father, Ram Ratan was only three years' old and he was living with his Bua (Aunty) namely Raj Rani, who got her name recorded in the revenue record qua the land in dispute. After attaining majority, Ram Ratan filed a Suit under Section 229-B/209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. before the Assistant Collector, Himirpur and the same was registered as Suit No.99 of 1986 (Ram Ratan vs. State of UP and 9 others). During the pendency of the said suit, Ram Ratan had also died and prior to his death, he had executed a registered Will deed dated 20.3.2009 in favour of the petitioner no.1. During the pendency of the suit, the ancestor of Rajrani had sold the land in question to Chandrawati @ Geeta Singh, Savitri Devi, Phoolmati, Geet Singh and Manik Singh through registered sale deed and their names were recorded in the revenue record. The petitioner no.1 was impleaded as applicant in place of Ram Ratan in the said suit and the same was decreed on 09.10.2014. The appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9.10.2014 has also been rejected by the Commissioner of the Division on 30.9.2015. Both the orders have been assailed before the Board of Revenue in the revision, which is pending consideration. The name of the petitioner no.1 has been recorded in the revenue record and he is in actual physical possession over the land in question. As a counterblast to the aforesaid proceeding, the present first information report has been lodged against the petitioners on account of the civil dispute. A bare perusal of the FIR, no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. Even though the proceedings are pending and neither the charge-sheet nor the final report has been submitted in the present case. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in M/s Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd & ors. AIR 2006 SC 2780, wherein it has been held that the tendency to convert a purely civil dispute into criminal cases is to be deprecated. He has also placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2021 (Randheer Singh vs. the State of UP and ors) decided on 02.9.2021.
The matter requires consideration.
All the respondents are accorded four weeks time to file counter-affidavit. The petitioners will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List immediately thereafter.
Till the next date of listing or till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation. "
4. No counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent no.4, despite service of notice and appearance of counsel on his behalf.
5. Supplementary-affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner wherein the judgment passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Hamirpur, in declaration of title case has been brought on record wherein the court has found that the will dated 20.03.2009 in favour of the petitioner no. 1 was genuine.
6. In view of the above, it is clear on the basis of FIR that will aforesaid was forged has not been found to be correct by the competent civil court which was the basis of the FIR impugned.
7. In view of the above, the impugned FIR is quashed.
8. The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :-09.05.2024
Abhishek
(Surendra Singh-I,J. ) (Siddharth,J.)
