Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42942-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 1 of 2025 Applicant :- Vaheed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla ),Manoj Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the review applicant. 2. This matter has been assigned to us by Hon'ble the Chief Justice by his order dated 22.07.2025. 3. We have gone through the review application and also the judgment and order dated 19.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3739 of 2025, which has been sought to be reviewed. 4. We have heard Pt. D.R. Shukla at length. He has filed a supplementary affidavit also wherein he has given an undertaking that petitioners shall not interfere and not seek any right over the land in dispute till such time that the Civil Suit is pending. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to 1995 every tenure holder was a Sirdar and not owner with transferable rights, and, therefore, the alleged sale deed could not have been executed in 1978. The title and ownership of the vendors Laeek Khan and Firoz Khan S/o Sabir Ali, was examined by the petitioner while going through the twelve years record maintained at the Tehsil level and he had then bought the land. 6. Moreover, petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are only marginal witnesses and they acted in good faith and also two Civil Suits bearing No.635 of 2024 and 2135 of 2023 are pending relating to the cancellation of sale deed dated 23.06.1978 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda. 7. We have gone through the judgement and order sought to be reviewed and we find that the Court had only put a specific query to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the vendors from whom the land was allegedly bought by the petitioner were the title holders of the land. 8. Since the counsel for the petitioner could not give an appropriate satisfactory reply and also refused to give any undertaking stating therein that the petitioners shall not interfere in any manner in the property in dispute unless the right and title is decided by the appropriate Civil Court, the Court had dismissed the writ petition. 9. This Court while sitting in review jurisdiction exercises a very limited power and no error apparent on the face of the record has been shown in the order sought to be reviewed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on merits of the case with regard to the right, title and interest of his vendor and this Court while considering the contents of the F.I.R. is not supposed to consider the defence of the accused which is a matter to be evaluated by the Trial Court after taking all evidence. 11. It is settled law that in writ petitions filed for quashing of F.I.R., the Court has only to see from a perusal of the F.I.R. as to whether a cognizable offence is made out under the Sections invoked by the informant. 12. This Court had expressed its mind in its earlier order that they had perused the F.I.R. and a cognizable offence was made out against the petitioners, so the relief claimed by the petitioners could not be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. We are in respectful agreement with the observations made by this Court in its order dated 19.05.2025. 14. The Review Application stands rejected. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Rahul Digitally signed by :- RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench