RAFIULLA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
CRLP/10377/2025 · 2025-11-13
Abdul Moin, Babita Rani
Civil Appealbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 181085 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 181085 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10377 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.
1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4 is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not intend to file any rejoinder affidavit and prays that the matter may be heard and decided finally. 3. The aforesaid statement is recorded. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri M. Waris Farooqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf fo the respondent No.4. 5. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. 6. Under challenge is the F.I.R. / Case Crime No.52 of 2025, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., lodged at Police Station Utraula, District Balrampur, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. 7. The case set forth by learned counsel for the petitioners is that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shikhar Deep Singh, Premkant, Vipin Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mohd. Waris Farooqui Rafiulla And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
the petitioners had purchased a part of Gata No.608 through a registered sale deed on 15.06.1979. Subsequently they have purchased part of Gata No.612 through registered sale deed on 23.07.1981 & 19.08.1982. 8. The petitioners filed an application for mutation of their names before the competent authority for Gata No.612 but inadvertently they indicated Gata No.608 Minjumla upon the same as would be apparent from a perusal of the application filed under section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as
"Act"), a copy of which has been filed by the respondent No.4 as Annexure- C.A.6 to the counter affidavit filed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners emphasises that the same was an inadvertent mistake inasmuch as, the date of sale deed has been mentioned as 21.07.1981. 10. Subsequent thereto, upon an application being filed by the respondent No.4, the competent authority vide its order dated 14.03.2024, a copy of which is Annexure- C.A.5 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, set aside its earlier order. 11.
Thereafter, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged contending that on the basis of false and fabricated sale deed, the petitioners have had their names entered in the revenue records in the year
2013. 12. The same is objected to by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 contending that the petitioners had deliberately filed the application for mutation of their names for Gata No.608 on the basis of the sale deed of the year 1981 which was for Gata No.612. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 is that a deliberate fraud has been committed by the petitioners and consequently, there is no error in the impugned F.I.R. being lodged against the petitioners for the fraud that has been committed by them. 14. Learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions sent by Shvi Kailash, Sub-Inspector, Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur CRLP No. 10377 of 2025 2
dated 03.11.2025, states that the investigation is still going on and prima facie the allegations against the petitioners are found to be true but documents are still being gathered. 16. Considering the aforesaid and the bona fides as expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners pertaining to the application filed under section 34 of the Act and at the same time considering that the said entry has already been set aside by the competent authority vide its order dated 14.03.2024 and the fact that the respondent-authorities are still gathering the documents, as such, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance to the impugned F.I.R. till cogent evidence is found against them. 17. It is needless to mention that the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation. November 13, 2025 S. Shivhare CRLP No. 10377 of 2025 3 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench