HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7393 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanandan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Om Prakash learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed the following relief: - "A.} To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of "MANDAMUS" commanding the opposite party no-3 and 4 to ensure the life and liberty of petitioners from the continuous harassment and torture, overact done by the opposite party no-5 to 9 i.e. from private respondents cause upon the petitioners. B.} To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of "MANDAMUS" commanding the respondent no-2 and 3 to ensure the life and liberty from the private respondent no- 5 to 9 as they have thrown out petitioners from their home and direct local police to make their safe entry in their own house. C} To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of "MANDAMUS" commanding the respondent no-3 to take appropriate action against the responsible police personnel of Gangaghat police station, who involved in conspiracy of causing fear in to mind of petitioners by which they have been compelled to leave their house." 3. Precisely, the case of the petitioner as culled out from the material available before this Court is that First petitioner namely Shyama Devi executed a Gift-deed in respect of a portion measuring area 62.73 sq. meter of her house on 15.12.2022 in favour of her unmarried daughter namely Poonam Kumari / petitioner no.2. The said Deed was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Unnao on 20.12.2022. Being agitated by the said act of the first petitioner, her other family members particularly the respondents Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanandan Kumar Misra, Bina Kumari Bajpai Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shyama Devi And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) herein numbered as 5 to 9, started brawl. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that aforesaid dispute turned into ‘assault and battery’ against the petitioners, compelling them to institute complaint against the private-respondents no. 5 to 9. Thus, the petitioners preferred several complaints regarding the misdeeds of the respondents no. 5 to 9, to the concerned authorities through IGRS portal, but could not get any positive response. It is also alleged in para no.13 of the writ petition that some local police officials are harassing the petitioners through mobile phone calls from various mobile numbers. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his clients are under serious threat from the respondents no. 5 to 9 to leave their house otherwise to face serious consequences. It is asserted by the learned counsel that the life and liberty of the petitioners are in danger and the petitioners are entitled for the protection of the same under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on the basis of written instructions dated 11.08.2025 received from the Police Station- Gangaghat, District-Unnao; submits that as per the report from the concerned police official who enquired the matter is that there is a serious dispute with in the family, between the petitioners and the private- respondents, regarding shares of the respective parties in the ancestral house located in Mohalla: Prem Nagar, Unnao and its division and a Civil Suit having Case no. 247 of 2024 is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Unnao. He categorically submits that the allegations levelled in the writ petition against the police / State-respondents are absolutely false and baseless. The IGRS application / complaint preferred by the petitioners was duly considered and thoroughly investigated by the police, photographs were taken on the spot and uploaded in the Report. In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the communication dated 01.05.2025 from the Additional Superintendent of Police / Nodal Officer IGRS District Unnao, addressed to the Secretary, Chief Minister Office, Lucknow as contained in annexure no. 5 to the writ petition, the operative part whereof is extracted herein below for convenience: “5- जांच का सारांश/िनष्कषर् प्रगत प्रकरण के संबंध में क्षेत्रािधकारी नगर की प्राप्त जांच आख्या के अवलोकन से पाया गया िक आवेिदका श्रीमती श्यामा देवी पत्नी स्व रमेश कु मार िनवासी मोहल्ला प्रेम नगर काली मंिदर के पास शुक्लागंज थाना गंगाघाट जनपद उन्नाव के 03 पुत्र क्रमशः 1. स्व० मनोज कु मार 02-संजय कु मार 3 अजय कु मार व 03 पुित्रयाँ क्रमशः १- कु ० पूनम कु मारी, 2- दीपा कु मारी 3- ज्योित कु मारी है। पूनम कु मारी को छोड़ कर बाकी दोनों की शादी हो गयी है। आवेिदका के पित का स्वगर्वाश वषर् 2022 में हो गया था। आवेिदका ने अपने पैतृक मकान को दान पात्र में वषर् CRLP No. 7393 of 2025 2 2023 में अपनी पुत्री पूनम कु मारी को दे िवया है। जब इस बात की जानकारी प्रितपक्षीगणों को हुई तो माननीय न्यायालय श्रीमान िसिवल जज (सी०िड०) उन्नाव के यहां वाद संख्या 247/2024 संजय कु मार, श्रीमती लक्ष्मी देवी, अमन जायसवाल पुत्र स्व० मनोज कु मार व शुभम जायसवाल पुत्र स्वा० मनोज कु मार, कु मारी िदव्यांशी जायसवाल पुत्री स्व० मनोज कु मार बनाम कु मारी पूनम पुत्री स्व० रमेश कु मार उफर् प्यारेलाल, अजय कु मार पुत्र स्व० रमेश कु मार उफर् प्यारेलाल, श्रीमता श्यामा देवी पत्नी स्वा० स्प्रेश कु मार उफर् प्यारेलाल िनवासी मनं0 14/162 मोहल्ला प्रेम नगर शुक्लागंज थाना गंगाघाट, उन्नाव द्वारा दायर िकया। उक्त मकान को आवेिदका खाली कराकर अपनी पुत्री कु मारी पूनम व पुत्र अजय कु मार को देना चाहती हैं, जबिक उपरोक्त मकान में सभी का िहस्सा है। िदनांक 27.03.2025 को सरकारी नल हर घर में लग रहे थे, आवेिदका की पुत्री पूनम कु मारी घर मे नल लगने नहीं दे रही थी, िजस कारण प्रितपक्षीयों द्वारा थाने में प्रा०पत्र िदया गया था, तथा आवेिदका उपरोक्त द्वारा भी उच्चािधकािरयों को प्राथर्ना पत्र िदया गया था िजसकी जाँच हेतु उपिनरी० गजेन्द्र िसह को प्राप्त हुआ था िजसकी जाँच करने उ०िन० गजेन्द्र िसह व आरक्षी मोिहत यादव थाना गंगाघाट उन्नाव मौके पर गये थे उच्चािधकािरयों के आदेशानुसार प्राथर्ना पत्र देने वाले आवेदक या आवेिवका के साथ मौके पर फोटो िखचवाने के उपरान्त जाँच में लगाकर भेजने का आदेश प्राप्त हुआ था िजसके क्रम में जब मौके पर उक्त उ०िन० गये थे तो आदेिवका की पुत्री पूनम की उपिस्थित में फोटो खींचकर लगाकर आईजीआरएस की आख्या के साथ भेजा था। उक्त उ०िनरी० व आरक्षी मोिहत के समक िकसी प्रकार की गली गलौज देने की बात दौरान जाँच प्रकाश में नहीं आयी। आवेिदका व िवपक्षीगण द्वारा उक्त मकान में िनवास िकया जा रहा है। आवेिदका और उसकी अिववािहत पुत्री कु ० पूनम प्रितपक्षीगण उपरोक्त को घर में रहने नहीं देना चाहती है. इसी बात को लेकर दोनो पक्षों के मध्य िववाद है। दोनों पक्षो के मध्य िववाद को देखते हुए दोनो पक्षों के िवरुद्ध िदनाँक 27/03/2024 को धारा 126/135 बीएनएसएस के अन्तगर्त उक्त उ०िन० द्वारा की कायर्वाही की गयी। उभय पक्षों के मध्य मकान के बंटवारे को लेकर सम्पूणर् िववाद मा० न्यायालय में िवचाराधीन है। िजसमें िकसी प्रकार का हस्तक्षेप िकया जाना समीचीन प्रतीत नही होता है। प्राथर्ना पत्र मे लगाये गये अन्य आरोपो की जाँच से पुिष्ट नहीं होती है। आवेिदका से मेिडकल कराने को कहा गया तो उसने मना कर िदया। िफर भी प्रभारी िनरीक्षक गंगाघाट जनपद उन्नाव को अलग से िनदेर्िशत िकया गया है िक आवेिदका उपरोक्त के प्रकरण में दोनों पक्षों पर सतर्क दृिष्ट रखते हुये, यिद कोई तथ्य प्रकाश में आता है तो िनयमानुसार िविधक कायर्वाही करते हुये, मुझे अवगत करायें। प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में अन्य कायर्वाही की आवश्यकता प्रतीत नहीं होती है। (emphasis supplied) 6. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the allegations levelled in the writ petition against the official respondents are totally vague and baseless. The State authorities in the instant case have acted promptly within their legal limits. The allegation levelled by the petitioner in paragraph 13 of the writ petition is also not acceptable for want of any credible proof in as much as the petitioners could not have file even with this writ petition any document such as call detail from the alleged numbers or any other proof, to substantiate her allegations. 7. It is very emphatically argued on behalf of the State-respondents that on CRLP No. 7393 of 2025 3 account of fact that a Civil Suit having Case No.247 of 2024 is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Unnao in respect of the property in question, as such, there is no occasion for the district administration and the local police to intervene into the civil dispute relating to the immovable property between private persons during the pendency of the civil litigation, which has been deprecated by Courts on several occasions. 8. This Court in the case of Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of UP & others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50033 of 2015) has directed the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to take disciplinary action against officers concerned, who entered into the dispute between two private parties in respect of immovable property. Pursuant thereto, the Government Order was issued on 16.10.2015 as reminder to the District Magistrates in the State of UP to desist from taking any action in a dispute of immovable properties of private persons and especially those where matter is pending in the Civil Court. Similar view was taken, and certain stringent directions were issued by this court in the case of Sayeed Khan versus State of U.P. & others (Writ-C No. 4362 of 2014). Taking note of the said directions, the State government proceeded to issue a Government Order dated 01.12.2014 clearly restraining the administrative authorities in interfering or adjudicating matters, which were within the domain of the civil Courts. 9. In the case of Shree Energy Developers Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of UP ans 6 others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17951 of 2022), decided on 13.6.2022 the Principal Secretary, Government of UP, Lucknow was directed to look into the matter and to issue direction to the District Magistrates of all the Districts in the State of UP not to interfere into any kind of private dispute relating to immovable property. The Principal Secretary, Government of UP was directed to submit action taken report to this Court through the Registrar General of this Court. 10. In the light of the judgement discussed herein above the communication / report dated 01.05.2025 as contained in annexure no. 5 to the writ petition whereby the complaint made by the petitioners has been disposed of by the Additional Superintendent of Police / Nodal Officer IGRS District Unnao declining to intervene in a dispute relating to the immovable propertiy of private persons, especially when the competent Civil Court is already seized with the matter; no interference is warranted by this Court at this stage. 11. Further, we could not find any credible material from the pleadings on record to substantiate the allegation of harassment or torture on the part of private-respondents no. 5 to 9 against the petitioners. Moreover, the CRLP No. 7393 of 2025 4 allegation levelled in Paragraph No.13 against some unknown persons apprehending them as police officers is a vague contention without any supporting material such as call details etc. 12. Without commenting on the genuineness of the allegations levelled by the petitioners against the respondents more particularly against the respondents number 5 to 9 it would be relevant to mention here that even if the allegations levelled by the petitioners in the writ petition be assumed to be correct at face value, the petitioners had the remedy of invoking appropriate provisions as provided under the law in the light of mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sakiri Vasu versus State of U.P. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, instead of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Thus taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground to entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Needless to say that it is always open for the petitioners to avail the remedies available to them under law both civil and criminal, as advised. August 27, 2025 dk/ CRLP No. 7393 of 2025 5 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench