HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10167 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. 1. Power filed by Sri Ajay Pratap Singh learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no. 4 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ajay Pratap Singh learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 3. This petition has been filed challenging the F.I.R. vide case crime no. 0372/2025, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 340(2) and 336(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, police station Nawabganj, district Gonda. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of false and concocted story whereas on account of mistake in the sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner showing as Paanwati @ Parvati wife of Ram Moorat, the same was recorded in the mutation and the KCC loan was also taken by the petitioner accordingly in the year 2018. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the proceedings for cancellation of sale-deed i.e. application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is pending against the ex parte decree. He further submits that it is the third F.I.R. in this connection and in regard to the second F.I.R. an interim protection has been granted by this Court vide order dated 25.6.2025 in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5326 of 2025. A copy of the said order is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deo Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Parvati In Aadhar Card)@ Paanwati @ Parvati (In Fir ) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Affairs Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) annexed as Annexure 9 to the petition. Thus, the submission is that the impugned F.I.R. is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submit that the impugned F.I.R. has rightly been lodged in accordance with law and it is not the case in which the civil dispute has been given cloak of criminal because petitioner had taken the KCC loan showing herself to be the wife of Ram Moorat i.e. respondent no. 4, whereas she is wife of Bajrangi. It has further been submitted that the sale-deed was also got executed in fraudulent manner, which has already been set aside by the civil court and merely because application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is pending, it cannot be said that the civil suit is pending. They further submit that even if the name of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned in the sale-deed executed in her favour showing to be wife of Ram Moorat she should have got it corrected but instead of doing same she has taken the loan showing herself to be the wife of Ram Moorat. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record as well as the contents of the F.I.R., the commissioning of offence cannot be ruled out because it could not be disputed that the petitioner having shown herself as wife of Ram Moorat has taken KCC loan, therefore, this Court is not justified to quash the F.I.R. vide case crime no. 0372/2025, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 340(2) and 336(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, police station Nawabganj, district Gonda in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani;(2017)2 SCC 779, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 as well as Muskan versus Ishaan Khan(Sataniya) and Others passed in Crl. Appeal No. 4752 of 2025. 8. Dismissed accordingly. November 10, 2025 kanhaiya CRLP No. 10167 of 2025 2 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench