Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36933-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5500 of 2025 Petitioner :- Badlu Ram And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Saurabh Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4/complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State Respondents. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 11.6.2025 lodged by opposite party No.4 in FIR/Case Crime No. 164/2025, under sections 191(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4), 326(g) BNS, Police Station, Visheshganj, District Bahraich, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ Petition. (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioners on the basis of impugned First Information Report dated 11.6.2025 lodged by opposite party No.4 in FIR/Case Crime No. 164/2025, under sections 191(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4), 326(g) BNS, Police Station, Visheshganj, District Bahraich, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ Petition." 3. It is the case of the petitioners that all the petitioners belong to the same family and have been falsely implicated in this case only because the husband of the complainant has been charge sheeted in pursuance of FIR lodged by the petitioner no.4, namely, Nanke S/o Devi Prasad in FIR No. 348 of 2024. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that some five or six years ago the husband of the complainant was running a poultry farm, which was situated near the house of the complainant, but such poultry farm has been abandoned and is no longer functioning and the complainant and her husband deliberately set the same on fire just to create evidence against the petitioners and has lodged the impugned FIR saying that the petitioners have set the poultry farm on fire. There was not a single livestock/poultry in the farm which suffered any burn injuries. Only certain properties on the farm were destroyed in the fire before Fire Brigade could douse the flames. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 4 have argued that setting property on fire involves a punishment of 10 years and it is a serious offence and the counsel for the respondent has produced before this Court a photograph of the Fire Brigade dousing the flames in the poultry farm. 6. It cannot be said on the basis of the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties that no incident of fire took place as the Fire Brigade was called to douse the flames. Whether or not the petitioners were involved in such incident of fire is a question of evidence. In the limited jurisdiction that we have we can only interfere where a cognizable offence is not made out from a bare perusal of the FIR. 7. No interference is called for. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Darpan Sharma Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench