HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10871 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. The petitioners who claim the rights and interests in respect of the property in question, have sought the following reliefs :- "(i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding the Respondent no.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the Opposite party No.4 and 5 and the other culprits; posing Advocate along with Opposite party no.5 and they be directed to go away and not interfere in the property of the petitioners. (ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'Mandamus' directing the Police Commissioner Lucknow/Opposite party on.2 to fairly investigate and to take appropriate steps to provide safety and security to the petitioners and their property in connection with the the property of the petitioners; relating to Crime No.503 of 2025, PS Madiyaon, District Lucknow. (iii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding the respondent No.1 to 3; and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, 19, Dayanand Marg Prayagraj/Opposite Party No.6, having its Camp Office Gomti Nagar Lucknow, through its Secretary; to take appropriate action against the Opposite Party No.5, who posed himself to be Practising Advocate of Civil Court Lucknow." 2. After hearing the parties, it transpires that there is a temporary injunction granted by the Court of Civil Judge, Malihabad, Senior Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sushil Kumar Singh, Ayush Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Subhash Chandra Pandey Ravindra Bihari Srivastava And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Division, Lucknow in Original Suit No.2161 of 2025 filed by opposite party no.5 wherein the petitioners are also defendants. The temporary injunction is still operating alleging interference in the rights and interests of the petitioners in the property claimed by them to be theirs and one or two F.I.R.s have been lodged by the petitioners against opposite party nos.4 and 5 wherein investigation is still pending. 3. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter as considering or granting relief no.1 assuming that it could be done in exercise of writ jurisdiction, would amount to passing an order which may run in the teeth of the temporary injunction already granted by the court in a suit relating to the same property between the parties. 4. As regards relief no.2, two F.I.Rs. have already been lodged and they will be investigated as per law. So far as safety and security of the petitioners and their property is concerned, civil dispute is pending and it is not for this Court to adjudicate as to who is in possession and enjoying the property. These are all matters to be seen in the civil suit. 5. As regards criminality, this would be seen during investigation of the two F.I.Rs. lodged by the petitioners. It is always open for the petitioners to seek such remedy under the criminal law or for his proper safety by approaching the concerned district authority who may look into the matter so far as security is concerned. 6. Now coming to the relief no.3, if any professional misconduct has been committed by the respondent no.5 who, as alleged, is an Advocate, then a complaint can be filed before the Bar Council of U.P. as per law, which can be considered but we see no reason at this stage purely in the facts of this case, to entertain this petition. 7. During investigation, it can be seen as to whether the matter is required to be investigated or monitored as the case may be, by the Committee constituted by this Court in Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.8810 of 2023 and connected matters, which is headed by the Joint Commissioner of Police. Consequences will follow accordingly, as per law. The petitioners can approach the said Committee if there is any cause and if the matter at hand is covered by reference under which the CRLP No. 10871 of 2025 2 committee is operating. 8. We cannot at this stage, form any opinion to direct that the said Committee or Cell may monitor the matter and it is for the said committee, to take a decision in the matter in the light of the facts of this case and our orders in this regard. 9. At this stage, Shri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not want to press relief nos.1 and 3 with liberty to pursue the remedy before the civil court or Bar Council of U.P. and so far as relief no.ii is concerned, the same be considered. 10. We have already considered relief no.ii, as aforesaid. 11. The petition is disposed of with liberty to pursue the matter in the pending suit, the criminal proceedings/ F.I.Rs. which are under investigation or approaching Bar Council of U.P. and to seek such other remedies as may be available in law. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court that name of petitioner no.1 has been wrongly shown in the computer record of this Court as Ravindra Bharti Srivastava whereas the correct name of the petitioner no.1 as is borne out from the memo of the writ petition is "Ravindra Bihari Srivastava". 13. Office is directed to correct the name of petitioner no.1 in the array of parties shown in the computer record as "Ravindra Bihari Srivastava" instead of Ravindra Bharti Srivastava. November 26, 2025 Shukla CRLP No. 10871 of 2025 3 Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench