ANIL KUMAR KUSHWAHA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
CRLP/22362/2025 · 2025-10-12
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 191156 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 191156 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22362 of 2025 Court No. - 43 HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, the counsel for respondent no. 4 and the A.G.A. for the State. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information Report dated 08.09.2025 lodged in case crime no. 459/25 under Sections 319(2), 318(4) , 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352 and 351(2) B.N.S., P.S. Naini , District Prayagraj. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have only facilitated the meeting of the informant with the ostensible owner of the property and had no role to pay in the execution of the agreement to sale and so far as payment of money to the ostensible owner is concerned. Rebutting the counsel for the petitioners, it has been argued by the counsel for respondent no. 4 that the forged Khatauni which showed the cousin of petitioner no. 1 as the owner of the property in dispute was given by the petitioner no. 1 to the respondent no. 4 and the petitioner no. 2 was also involved in facilitating the payment of money by the first informant to the petitioners. It has been argued by the counsel for the respondent that for the aforesaid reason, it is not a case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties. A reading of the first information report shows that the allegation against the petitioners is that they were involved in the commission of the offence stated in the first information report which are cognizable offence. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lal Ji Maurya, Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Pandey, G.A., Rajesh Kumar Mishra Anil Kumar Kushwaha And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
It is not a fit case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. October 13, 2025 Satyam CRLP No. 22362 of 2025 2 (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATYAM AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad