Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29306-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3739 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vaheed And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla ) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report dated 5.12.2023 bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No.1018 of 2023, under Sections 506, 504, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 I.P.C. at Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District-Gonda. 4. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that though the land was sold by the original owner by sale deed dated 29.3.1978, the accused have shown the sale of the same by sale deed dated 16.2.2023. Thus, from a perusal of the F.I.R., the main allegation is that the seller had no right to sell the property and both seller and purchaser in collusion had created the said forged document illegally. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the sale deed of the year 1978 is 45 years old and he did not get the same mutated in the revenue records. The petitioners had looked into the revenue records and thereafter, proceeded to purchase the property in question. 6. Along with the supplementary affidavit, the order of Naib Tehsildear, showing mutation of the land in the name of petitioners on the basis of sale deed dated 16.2.2023, is also brought on record. The Court had repeatedly asked learned counsel for the petitioners to show the title and ownership of the person, who had sold the land to the petitioners, but he could not reply to the same. 7. Reliance is also placed by learned counsel for the petitioners upon the judgments of this Court in Ghanshyam vs. D.M. Jaunpur, District Jaunpur and another, 2009(11) RCR(Civil) 942, Chandrajeet Ram vs. State of U.P. and another, 2009 SCCOnline All 2446, and Smt. Sundar Pati vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-B No.11414 of 2017) by order dated 26.5.2022. 8. None of the aforesaid judgments address the sole question in consideration before us as to how seller had sold the property to the petitioners. This Court also gave an option to learned counsel for the petitioners to file an affidavit stating therein that petitioners shall not interfere in any manner in the property in dispute unless right and title of the same is decided by the appropriate civil court, but learned counsel for the petitioners did not accept the said option. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, no case for consideration is made out. From a perusal of the impugned F.I.R., a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, so the relief as claimed by the petitioners in the present petition cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. . [Brij Raj Singh,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.] Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench