HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8154 of 2025 With CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7951 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. In deference to the previous orders passed by this Court, petitioner No.1; Santosh Kumar Maurya, petitioner No.2; Sunita Maurya and respondent No.4; Poonam Maurya are present in person before this Court. 2. Heard Sri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing at some length, submits that the petition may be dismissed as not pressed on behalf of the petitioner No.1; Santosh Kumar Maurya with liberty to avail remedy of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sameer Singh, Sakshi Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Anil Kumar Tripathi Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Pandey, Sharad Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Anil Kumar Tripathi Santosh Kumar Maurya And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Pravesh Kumar Yadav And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) anticipatory bail / bail and he will press this petition on behalf of the petitioner No.2; Sunita Maurya. To which, there is no objection by the other side. 4. In view of above, this petition is dismissed as not pressed on behalf of the petitioner No.1; Santosh Kumar Maurya with liberty as prayed for. 5. Now this petition survives only on behalf of the petitioner No.2; Sunita Maurya. 6. This petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 08.08.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0143 of 2025, under Sections 351(3), 352, 340(2), 336(3), 338, 318(4) and 319(2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Gomti Nagar Extension, District Lucknow. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged with a delay of 03 years without any explanation for the delay, whereas both the parties are residing in one and the same house and the respondent No.4 has already filed a civil suit for cancellation of gift deed made by the petitioners on 05.11.2022 before the District Court, in which, the petitioners have moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the suit as not maintainable and no interim injunction has been granted to the respondent No.4. 8. He further submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged with wrong and concocted averments as the respondent No.4 herself executed the gift deed in favour of the petitioner No.1 i.e. Santosh Kumar Maurya in regard to the half portion of the property in dispute, which was registered in the Sub Registrar Office on 17.10.2018. On the basis of same, the petitioner No.1 had become sole owner of the property in dispute and he has executed a gift deed dated 30.07.2022 of entire property in favour of the petitioner No.2; Sunita Maurya. Thus, submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned FIR is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. 9. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.4 vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the CRLP No. 8154 of 2025 2 petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the petition has been filed with false and misconceived averments as the husband of the respondent No.4 i.e. Santosh Kumar Maurya was a PCS Officer and the averment made in paragraph No.9 of the petition that the respondent No.4 forced to get her name entered into the deed executed by the Lucknow Development Authority is totally false and misconceived as the deed was prepared by the Lucknow Development Authority. Infact the name of respondent No.4 was included in the sale deed executed by the Lucknow Development Authority in compliance of the Government Order No.645/9-Aa-2-20001 dated 08.03.2001, according to which, the sale deed in the cases of married persons could be executed jointly in the name of husband and wife. Thus, it was executed in the name of Santosh Kumar Maurya and Poonam Maurya. 11. He further submits that to give quietus to the dispute, the respondent No.4 only want her half share in the said property, in regard to which the gift deed has been got executed by her husband, Santosh Kumar Maurya by alluring her and in a fraudulent manner on the ground that he has to purchase a grove after selling the property and being wife, the respondent No.4 believing her husband executed the gift deed. Thereafter, without intimation to the respondent No.4, Santosh Kumar Maurya executed the gift deed of whole property in favour of the Sunita Maurya. 12. He also submits that infact the husband of respondent No.4 i.e. Santosh Kumar Maurya had got solemnized arranged marriage with the respondent No.4 showing himself to be a divorcee, whereas the divorce had not taken place. In this regard an affidavit has also been filed by the mother of Santosh Kumar Maurya before his department disclosing that Santosh Kumar Maurya had played fraud even with his mother for the marriage with the respondent No.4 as he told her that the divorce with petitioner No.2; Sunita Maurya had already taken place, whereas the divorce had not taken place and considering the same, Santosh Kumar Maurya has also been dismissed from service. 13. In regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent CRLP No. 8154 of 2025 3 No.4 that she has no other house and she wants only her half portion in property in dispute, which was purchased by her with her husband, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that three years have passed and the petitioners have not taken any action for eviction of the respondent No.4 and she can not be evicted by the petitioners except in accordance with law. 14. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the records. 15. The petitioner No.1; Santosh Kumar Maurya and the respondent No.4; Poonam Maurya were married and are husband and wife. Though it has been disputed by the petitioners but the material on record does not indicate the same, which is also apparent from the fact that the property in dispute was purchased by the Santosh Kumar Maurya and the respondent No.4 jointly as husband and wife and the sale deed was executed jointly in their names as husband and wife in view of the aforesaid Government Order dated 08.03.2001. The gift deed of the half portion of the respondent No.4 has been executed by her in favour of Santosh Kumar Maurya, in regard to which there are issues between the parties as the respondent No.4 says that it has been got executed by alluring and playing fraud with her as stated above, whereas learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was made by her own. Be that as it may. In regard to it, a civil suit is already pending before the civil court, in which an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been filed by Santosh Kumar Maurya, which is pending consideration. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner No.2 is entitled for protection during pendency of the investigation. 16. In regard to the apprehension of the respondent No.4 that she may be evicted by the petitioners on account of execution of gift deed by Santosh Kumar Maurya in favour of the petitioner No.2, in which civil suit is pending, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of instructions, has already stated that no action has been taken for the last three years and the respondent No.4 cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. 17. In view of above, the petition is disposed of providing herein that the CRLP No. 8154 of 2025 4 petitioner No.2; Sunita Maurya shall not be arrested in connection with the impugned FIR till submission of the police report subject to her co- operation in the investigation. September 26, 2025 Saurabh CRLP No. 8154 of 2025 5 (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench