Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37143-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5583 of 2025 Petitioner :- Devtadeen And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Anoop Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned A.G.A., who appears for the State/respondents and perused the record. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to respondent No.4 is hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. dated 17.06.2025 bearing Case Crime No.182 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station Bisheshwarganj, District Bahraich. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the sons of one Suresh, who is the paternal uncle of the informant and he died some years ago and the informant intends to take over the property belonging to the paternal uncle although rightful it should be inherited by the petitioner nos.4 and 5, who are sons. Respondent no.4 only to create pressure upon the petitioners has falsely implicated them in the impugned F.I.R. Respondent no.4 has also moved an application under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, which is pending before the Consolidation Officer for declaration of his right and title to the property belonging to his paternal uncle Suresh, who is father of the petitioner nos.4 and 5. Respondent no.4 has tried to give colour of criminal case, which is purely of civil in nature. 5. We have gone through the impugned F.I.R., which has been lodged after the order passed by the Additional District Judge in Criminal Revision No.47 of 2020 after due application of mind through entire facts of the controversy and find that no doubt the facts as mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. that simultaneously be pressed in a civil dispute for declaration of tile, the fraud alleged by the respondent can also be looked into as an offence under the Cr.P.C., therefore, we do not find any good ground to show interference in the impugned F.I.R. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Anupam S/- Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench