Allahabad High Court
Tejvir Singh And Another vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 10 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84845-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2333 of 2024
Petitioner :- Tejvir Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakhar Saran Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 28.01.2020, registered as Case Crime No. 0089 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station- Kasna, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
3. Despite service of notice on respondent no. 4, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.
4. On 21.02.2024 the following interim order was passed is quoted hereinbelow :-
"1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners pray that this Court may quash the impugned First Information Report dated 28.1.2020 registered as Case Crime No.0089 of 2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, at Police Station - Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that originally one Ram Chandra was owner of Plot No.328 measuring 0.416 hectares. He has sold 1/4th share of the property in favour of Jaipali in the year 1994 and thereafter his legal representative has sold some more land to some person on 9.1.2008.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the year 2008 son of Jaipali has sold the property in favour of the complainant. Learned counsel submits that the FIR has been registered with the allegation that legal representative of Ram Chandra has sold some portion of the property to the petitioner no. 1 whereas petitioner no.2 is the witness to the sale deed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751 to submit that in fact it is the petitioner no. 1 who is the bona-fide purchaser and is a victim of fraud committed upon him.
5. Matter requires consideration.
6. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. for the State.
7. Issue notice to respondent No.3 to 5.
8. All the respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks, thereafter.
9. List on 10.5.2024.
10. Meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid F.I.R dated 28.1.2020."
5. It is not clear whether charge sheet has been submitted or not.
6. In view of the above, petition is disposed of directing that till cognizance is taken on police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., by the court the respondents shall not arrest the petitioners pursuant to the First Information Report dated 28.01.2020, registered as Case Crime No. 0089 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station- Kasna, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, subject to cooperation in ongoing investigation.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
Rohit
(Surendra Singh-I,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
