Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43268-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6657 of 2025 Petitioner :- Govardhan And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers: "a. writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash impugned First Information Report registered at First Information Report registered at FIR/Case Crime No.0275 of 2025 Under Section 419,420,467,468,504,506 I.P.C. Police Station-Nanpara, District- Bahraich dated 14.06.2025 lodged by Opposite Party No.3 against the Petitioners and others which is contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. b. A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 not to arrest to Petitioners in First Information Report registered at FIR/Case Crime No.0275 of 2025 Under Section 419,420,467,468,504,506 I.P.C. Police Station-Nanpara, District- Bahraich dated 14.06.2025 lodged by Opposite Party No.3 against the Petitioners and others." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the allegation made in the F.I.R., Gata No.473(kha), admeasuring 0.190 hectare, situated at village Chaukasahaar Khairighat, Police Station Khairighat, Tehsil Nanpara, District Bahraich, was in the name of Goverdhan and Shrikant, who had half share of the property and entire property was sold to the complainant by petitioner no.1 and his brother through two separate sale deeds and there was no share left of petitioner no.1 in the said property, yet he sold the property to is daughter-in- law Sangeeta Devi on 5.10.2018, thus, committed fraud upon the informant. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier also, opposite party no.3 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 13.2.2024 on the same set of allegation. The Trial Court by order dated 26.2.2024 treated the said application as a complaint case. Now the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged with respect to the same incident/facts and the informant is trying to create undue pressure upon the petitioner. It has been submitted that the impugned F.I.R. could not have been lodged as there was already a complaint case pending, relating to the same alleged offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of P. Manikandan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, 2024 INSC 1007, decided by the Supreme Court on 19.12.2024 and Paragraphs 30, 31, 32, 34 and 35 thereof. 5. We have gone through the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforecited judgement and we find that they relate to Article 20 of the Constitution of India, wherein it has been provided that in case a person is tried and convicted for an offence by the competent Court, he shall not be troubled for the same offence. 6. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, as aforesaid, is untenable as till date, informant's complaint case is still pending trial and petitioners have not been convicted. 7. Moreover, learned A.G.A. on the basis of Section 233 of B.N.S., 2023 has submitted that a complaint case and a police case can go hand to hand simultaneously and if the trial court is convinced that they relate to the same offence, it can either stay the proceedings of the complaint case or it can ask the police to submit a report and try both the cases simultaneously. 8. We have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. and we find that an offence is made out. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench