HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11289 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the respondents-State and Shri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. points out that the petitioner is having a criminal history of 24 cases. 3. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Wajid and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2023) 20 SCC 219, to contend that even though the petitioner may be having various criminal cases against him, this court may examine the version as made in the FIR and accordingly, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Wajid (supra) , the Court proceeds to hear the matter. 4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.478 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 333, 324(4), 352, 351(3), 329(3), 303(2), 140(1) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Raebareli. 5. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the aforesaid FIR has been lodged by the respondent No.4 contending that her house has been demolished by the petitioner. Contention is that house of the petitioner is situated at Gata No.1995 of which the petitioner is having an agreement to sale (without possession). Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mohammad Shahzad Ahmad, Shamshad Ahmad Aman Jaiswal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 6. The house being situated at Gata No.1995 is also admitted by Shri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. However, he states that owners of the two plots of land are two brothers of which one brother has stated that there is no encroachment over the said piece of land while the other has stated that there is certain encroachment over the aforesaid piece of land. In none of the documents has the possession of the respondent No.4 emerged. 7. Contention is that aforesaid FIR has been lodged in order to harass the petitioner more particularly when respondent No.4 does not have any title over the piece of land. 8. Learned A.G.A. states that investigation is going on. 9. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till filing of a charge-sheet/final report. 10. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation failing which he would not be entitled to the benefit of this order. December 3, 2025 prateek CRLP No. 11289 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench