1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1865 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 150 of 2025 Applicant :- Uma Shankar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "I. To issue an order or direction quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against petitioner arising out of Charge Sheet No.02 dated 14.09.2024, U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B I.P.C., F.I.R. No.0124/2024, U/S- 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, I.P.C., Police Station- Para, District- Lucknow, Cognizance and Summoning Order dated 05.10.2024 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Custom), Lucknow, summoning petitioner to face trial U/S-420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B, I.P.C. in Criminal Case No.70667/2024 (State Versus Mohd. Aziz Qureshi & Others) as contained in Annexure No. 3 and 4 respectively to the affidavit filed in support of this Petition. II. To stay the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.70667/2024 (State Versus Mohd. Aziz Qureshi & Others) arising out of F.I.R. No.0124/2024, U/S. 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, I.P.C., Police Station- Para, District- Lucknow, Charge Sheet No. 02 dated 14.09.2024, U/s- 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B, I.P.C., Cognizance and Summoning Order dated 05.10.2024 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Custom), Lucknow, summoning petitioner to face trial U/S-420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B, I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 70667/2024 (State Versus Mohd. Aziz Qureshi & Others) as contained in Annexure No. 3 and 4 respectively to the affidavit filed in support of this Petition, during pendency of present petition before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice." 3. Considered the following facts, as indicated, including the facts, which appears from the F.I.R. dated 06.03.2024, registered as F.I.R. No.0124/2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., at Police Station - Para, District - Lucknow West, Commissionerate of Lucknow against Aslam Khan, Ram Gopal, Gulab Chandra Gautam, Khalil Ahmad and Uma Shanker Tiwari (applicant) :- 2 (i) Khalil Ahmad is the father of informant/Akbar, Salim, Taslim and Anwar. (ii) Khalil Ahmad executed a "Will" dated 28.10.2009 and on 28.10.2009 the same was got registered in the office of Sub Registrar 5th Lucknow. (iii) The 'Will' aforesaid, relates to the property of Khalil Ahmad, including the House having area 1000 Sqft., Plot No.10 and 11 over Khasra No.828, and a House having area 1800 Sqft., Plot No.6 over Khasra 1331/5, which were purchased by Khalil Ahmad through a sale deed(s) 06.05.1992 and 06.04.2005. (iv) Khalil Ahmad expired on 13.11.2011. (v) One Mohd. Aslam (co-accused), S/o Abrar Husain sent a legal notice dated 06.01.2024 to the informant and his brothers. (vi) The basis of the notice dated 06.01.2024, above indicated, is the registered "Will" deed dated 18.12.2022 of Khalil Ahmad, father of the informant. (vii) The F.I.R. indicates the date of death of Khalil Ahmad as 15.02.2022. (viii). Indisputably the applicant is the tenant of the premises in dispute and he entered into an agreement to sale with co-accused Mohd. Aslam. (ix) The implication of the applicant is based upon Section 120-B I.P.C. 4. This Court also took note of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner i.e. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2023 of 2024 (Uma Shankar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others) vide order dated 22.03.2024, which reads as under :- "Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. dated 06.03.2024 bearing Case Crime No.0124/2024 for the offence under Sections-420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station-Para, District-Lucknow (Lucknow West, Commissionerate Lucknow). Petitioner is tenant of the premises of which the informant is the landlord. Earlier, the premises were recorded in the name of informant's father. The impugned F.I.R. alleges fabrication of will deed dated 18.12.2022 by or at 3 the behest of the petitioner. Certain other allegations have also been levelled by the informant against the petitioner. The contention of petitioner's counsel is that there is a dispute in respect of the property between the informant and a third person who is a beneficiary of the aforesaid will said to have been executed by the informant's father. Petitioner is merely a tenant and has been regularly paying rent in respect of the premises to the informant. He has unnecessarily been dragged into this controversy and has been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. No offence, as alleged, is made out against him. On being confronted, Sri A.M. Faridi, learned counsel for opposite party nos.4 and 5 and has filed a counter affidavit, submits that father of the informant had died in 2011, prior to it, he had executed a registered will deed in 2009 in favour of the informant and his heirs. In 2022, when the informant wanted to sell the house, the documents pertaining to the property etc were given to the petitioner's tenant who has a tractor agency in the premises. Petitioner in connivance with the beneficiaries of the forged and fabricated will took advantage of the aforesaid situation and got the aforesaid will executed claiming rights based thereon on the ground that after execution of the aforesaid will of 2022, the father of the informant died in 2023 whereas he has annexed death certificate of his father, according to which, he has died in 2011. Moreover, he says that subsequently, the informant has come to know that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the beneficiary of the forged will, therefore, his complicity is evident in the offence as alleged. The F.I.R. may not mention the complete facts but the F.I.R. is not supposed to be an encyclopedia. All the documents will be provided to the Investigating Officer and the facts would be narrated in the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which has not been recorded as yet. Learned A.G.A. says that there are specific allegations in the F.I.R. against the petitioner and the rest is a matter of investigation. This is not a case where F.I.R. should be quashed at this stage. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, considering the facts as noticed hereinabove, we do not see any reason to exercise our extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R. The petitioner can claim anticipatory bail under Section -438 Cr.P.C. or seek such other remedies as may be permissible in law but there is no way that at least at this stage we can say that no cognizable offence is made out. Investigation is required to be conducted. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed." 5. This Court also took note of the order dated 02.04.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, whereby this Court dismissed the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2244/2024 (Mohammad Aslam Khan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). The order dated 02.04.2024 reads as under :- 4 "Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondent is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of F.I.R. dated 06.03.2024 bearing Case Crime No.0124/2024 for the offence under Sections-420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station-Para, District-Lucknow (Lucknow West, Commissionerate Lucknow). Contention of the petitioners' counsel is that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. In fact, Late Khalil Ahmad S/ o of Late Rasool Khan was an unmarried person. Petitioner No.1 is the son of close friend of Khalil Ahmad, who took care of him and provided him foods and medicines and looked after him for everything. Being pleased by the behaviour of petitioner No.1, Khalil Ahmad bequeath his property to petitioner No.1 by way of a registered will dated 28.12.2022. Subsequently, Khalil Ahmad died in 2023. Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are the witnesses of will who have no concern with the case. The informant and his brothers falsely showing themselves that they are the sons of Khalil Ahamd, just to grab the property of an unmarried person. They cooked up a story that the informant is the son of Khalil Ahmad and lodged the FIR in question with false and baseless facts. On being confronted, Sri A.M. Faridi, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 and has filed a counter affidavit, submits that father of the informant had died in 2011, prior to it, he had executed a registered will deed in 2009 in favour of the informant and his heirs. In 2022, when the informant wanted to sell the house, this fact came into his knowledge that on the behest of the co-accused Uma Shankar Tiwari, a forged and fabricated will has been prepared in favour of petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are the witnesses of the said will. The will has been executed by an imposter in favour of petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are the persons of the pocket of petitioner No.1 as well as co-accused Uma Shankar Tiwari. The above Khalil Ahmad had died in 2011. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.1 has instituted a civil suit bearing suit No.190 of 2024 against the sons of Khalil Ahmad on basis of forged will, and petitioner No.1 tried to get ex-parte interim injunction order in his favour on the basis of aforesaid will deed but the court concerned declined to pass any ex-parte interim injunction order rather issued notice to the defendants. Learned A.G.A. says that there are specific allegations in the F.I.R. against the petitioner and the rest is a matter of investigation. This is not a case where F.I.R. should be quashed at this stage. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, considering the facts as noticed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that there are substantial question of facts which are the subject matter of investigation. The petitioners themselves have shown opposite party No.4 5 the informant as son of Khalil Ahmad which is contrary to the recitals of alleged will. This Court in its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction cannot adjudicate the factual matter, as perusal of FIR certainly reflects the commission of cognizable offence. In view of the above, we do not see any reason to quash the F.I.R. However, petitioners shall be at liberty to seek such other remedies as may be permissible in law. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed." 6. On being confronted, after considering the aforesaid as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases, according to which in the given facts of the case, the criminal and civil proceedings can go simultaneously, learned counsel for the applicant says that applicant may be permitted to withdraw the present application with liberty to approach the concerned court seeking discharge. 7. The aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for the applicant has not been opposed. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the liberty as aforesaid. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 ML/- Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench