HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9795 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent(s) as well as Shri Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4 and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit, filed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is taken on record. In the supplementary affidavit, he has explained the details of petitioner no.2 properly. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the impugned F.I.R. dated 24.09.2025 bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0458 of 2025, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nanpara, District Bahraich. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has requested that he may be permitted to delete the name of petitioner nos. 11, 12 and 13 from the array of the petitioners as he is not pressing their petition at this stage and liberty may be given to those petitioners to take appropriate remedy before the Court of law. 4. Considering the aforesaid request, learned counsel for the petitioners is hereby permitted to delete the name of petitioners no.11, 12 and 13 from the array of the petitioners and this writ petition may be treated as a writ petition of petitioners no.1 to 10 only. However, it is needless to say that for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Shailendra Kumar Lal Khan And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) redressal of the grievance of petitioners no. 11 to 13 any appropriate remedy may be sought before the appropriate Court of Law/Authority. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 11.10.2022 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 24.09.2025 without explaining the inordinate delay properly particularly the allegation against the present petitioners are concerned. The present petitioners are the villagers having no malafide intention of any kind whatsoeveer have given their affidavit as evidence in a mutation proceedings initiated by the co- accused, namely, Sanjeeda Begum. They are not the beneficiary of the transaction in question in any manner whatsoever. Besides, the petitioners no.1 to 10 having impression that they are giving their affidavit of evidence in a civil/revenue proceedings with bonafide intention, therefore, they may not be implicated in any proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the investigation is going on and the petitioners no.1 to 10 undertake that they shall co-operate in the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of the protection. There is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the petitioners no.1 to 10. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4 have opposed the aforesaid request by submitting that the petitioners no.1 to 10 have filed their affidavit of evidence without verifying the fact as to whether the contents of affidavit are correct or incorrect. However, learned counsel for the opposite parties have stated that so far as the contention of counsel for the petitioners in respect of malafide intention of petitioners no.1 to 10 are concerned, they have nothing to say on that at this stage in as much as investigation is going on. 8. On being asked as to whether counsel for the opposite parties are willing to file counter affidavit, they have stated that since counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the writ petition for petitioners no.11, 12 and 13, who are having malafide intention and ulterior motive in this case, therefore, they are not proposing to file any counter affidavit on their CRLP No. 9795 of 2025 2 behalf, but have requested that the case of petitioners no.1 to 10 may be distinguished from petitioners no. 11, 12 and 13 as petitioners no. 11 to 13 are having different role from petitioners no.1 to 10. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into the merits of the issue, we hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage, primafacie it appears that petitioners no.1 to 10 are not beneficiary of the transaction in question in any manner whatsoever, their conduct may be negligent by filing an affidavit of evidence without verifying the fact as to whether the content thereof are correct or incorrect but i.e. the subject matter of investigation particularly to verify as to whether they have committed any criminal act; investigation is going on and undertaking of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation. Therefore, the petitioners no.1 to 10 are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer concerned on 10th November, 2025 at 11:00 am. and to cooperate in the investigation and shall further cooperate in the investigation till filing of the police report. 10. It is expected that till the filing of police report and subject to their proper cooperation, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners no. 1 to 10, failing which this interim protection may be withdrawn on the application being moved by the prosecution or the complainant. 11. It is needless to say that the benefit of aforesaid order may not be extended to petitioner nos. 11 to 13 whose names have been deleted from the array of the petitioners as their case if filed, may be appreciated on the basis of pleadings of the parties. 12. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. November 3, 2025 Praveen CRLP No. 9795 of 2025 3 (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench