Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11280-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1495 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajni Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijay Singh,Avinash Singh Vishen Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Lalji Prasad Shukla Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, filed today by learned counsel for the petitioner, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Lalji Prasad Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 and perused the material available on record. 3. The petition seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the First Information Report dated 12.11.2024, bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No. 474 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. lodged at Police Station- Laharpur, District- Sitapur and to direct the opposite parties no.1 to 3 not to take any coercive action, including arrest against the petitioner. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner- Rajni Devi claimed the ownership of the property through a will deed dated 27.09.2008. On the basis of the same, she filed a civil suit, bearing no. 687 of 2009 before the Civil Court at Sitapur. In the said suit, Smt. Sushila Devi filed a counter claim claiming the will deed to be forged and also claiming herself to be the owner of the 'will deed'. The suit was decided vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2014 by the J.S.C.C./Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and granted a mandatory injunction against the plaintiff in favour of the defendant that the plaintiff shall not interfere in the ownership and possession of the defendant. Thereafter an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2016 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, which was also dismissed on 10.05.2018 by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.8, Sitapur. The said judgment was never challenged thereafter. Original deed was never produced in the Court and the petitioner is not yet declared the owner of the property in dispute and still she has executed two sale deeds of the said property on 16.07.2022 and 22.11.2022, respectively. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that at best there can be a case of contempt and no criminal case is made out against the petitioners. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.4 opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find that when the Civil Court has already held a person not to be the owner of the property how the sale deed could be executed by him. 8. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and from reading of the F.I.R., cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. 9. In the result, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 21.2.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench