Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 135258 (ALL)

LAUVKUSH R GAUTAM v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

CRLP/3304/2025 · 2025-04-24

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, Vivek Chaudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23315-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3304 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lauvkush R Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Imaran Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State respondents and perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner filed present writ petition challenging the First Information Report dated 7.4.2025 bearing FIR/Case Crime no. 93 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, Police Station Mohanganj, District Amethi. 3. We are surprised to see that only impugned First Information Report is annexed with the writ petition and there is no other document filed by the petitioner alongwith the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in paragraph -9 of the writ petition he has stated that amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- towards sale consideration in different dates were transferred in the account of the seller. There is nothing on record to show that as on what date the amount was transferred. It is also not clear as to what was the sale consideration as even the sale deed is not annexed with the writ petition. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that a forged sale deed has been executed. We are not in a position even to verify the validity of sale deed by perusing the same. 4. Learned AGA on the instruction states that the petitioner is a witness and the allegations are that a wrong person has executed the sale deed whom the petitioner has identified, hence, he has played an active role in the execution of the sale deed. 5. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find it to be a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in the present matter. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. . (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Dhirendra/ Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench