HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8067 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard. 2. This Court had passed the following order on 08.09.2025:- "1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer : "A. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 18.06.2025 under case crime no.0206/2025, under section 191 (2), 191 (3), 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 109, 125, 121 (1), 132, 126 (2), 324 (4), 282, 221 B.N.S.S. and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, police station Gauriganj, district Amethi. B. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioner in impugned First Information Report dated 18.06.2025 under case crime no.0206/2025, under section 191 (2), 191 (3), 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 109, 125, 121 (1), 132, 126 (2), 324 (4), 282, 221 B.N.S.S. and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, police station Gauriganj, district Amethi as contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a tenure holder of Gata Nos. 174, 283 and 292, which has now been recorded as Navin Parti, in regard to which steps are being taken by the petitioner for correction. He further submits that without service of any notice action was taken and on the basis of false and concocted story, the impugned first information report has been lodged, whereas the house of the petitioner has also been demolished without taking appropriate action in accordance with law. Thus, the impugned first information report is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that none of the officials has sustained injury, which is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Tejbhan Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) apparent from the copy of bail order of co-accused Ram Krishna Maurya, Udaibhan Singh and Virendra Singh. Copy of bail order of co-accuseds has been annexed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. 5. Learned A.G.A., opposes the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per instructions, the complainant Kuldeep Yadav, Lekhpal, Manoj Kumar Saroj Lekhpal and S.K. Singh suffered simple injuries as per medical report conducted on 19.06.2025 at about 6.00 PM but he could not contradict aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage. 6. The matter requires consideration. 7. Issue notice to the respondent No.4. 8. Steps be taken within three days. 9. List with service report on 22.09.2025, on which date learned A.G.A. shall produce complete case-diary. The respondent no.4 shall also appear before this Court along with the notice served on the petitioner. The Station House Officer of concerned police station shall also inform to the respondent no.4 about this order. 10. Till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with Case Crime no.0206/2025, under section 191 (2), 191 (3), 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 109, 125, 121 (1), 132, 126 (2), 324 (4), 282, 221 B.N.S.S. and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, police station Gauriganj, district Amethi. However, the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation." 3. In deference to the aforesaid order, the respondent no.4-Kuldeep Yadav is present in person. 4. Learned AGA, on the basis of instructions, submits that the notice for removal of encroachment was issued by the Nagar Palika Parishad Gauriganj, District Amethi to the concerned persons on 11.06.2025 and 14.06.2025 but the concerned persons had refused to receive the same, therefore, the public notice dated 14.06.2025 was issued. Thereafter, the action was taken. However, submission is that the Lekhpal had gone for demarcation on the land, on which the incident had occurred. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of contents of F.I.R., the commissioning of offence cannot be ruled out, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. It is accordingly dismissed. September 22, 2025 Akanksha Sri/- CRLP No. 8067 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench