Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19828-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2817 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Ram Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Dixit,Sunil Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material available on record. 2. This petition seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 28.02.2025, lodged by the opposite party no.4, bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No.0080 of 2025, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of I.P.C., lodged at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Hardoi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 had first married with one Babu from which a son Rukum Lal was born and thereafter after separation from her first husband she married with Chote Lal from which two daughters and a son Ratibhan were born. After death of Chote Lal, petitioner no.1 has become owner of his agricultural land which she has gifted to petitioner no.2- Rukum Lal. Therefore, the dispute is purely of civil in nature, which is being given criminal colour. 4. Learned A.G.A. strongly opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that from reading of the F.I.R. criminal case is clearly made out against the petitioners. 5. Averments of the F.I.R. states that petitioner no.2- Rukum Lal had killed Ratibhan, son born from Chote Lal for which he was awarded life imprisonment and his out on bail. Now petitioner no.1 and 2 in collusion have prepared all the identity cards and other documents of petitioner no.2/Rukumlal showing him to be son of Chote Lal. In fact petitioner no.2 admittedly is son of Babu. Even in the gift deed executed by the petitioner no.1 in favour of petitioner no.2 falsely shown to be son of Chote Lal. All the documents have been fraudulently prepared making an attempt to show petitioner no.2 to be son of Chote Lal. There is no registered adoption deed placed before this Court to show that Chote Lal ever adopted petitioner no.2. Chote Lal has already expired. 6. Thus, all the documents prepared by the petitioner no.2 in collusion with petitioner no.1 showing himself to be son of Chote Lal are false and the F.I.R. also makes this specific allegation. 7. We have gone through the submission of learned counsel for the parties. 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 petitioners. 9. In the result, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench