Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56284-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6661 of 2025 Petitioner :- Meharban Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Aslam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kulveer Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Kulveer Singh, learned counsel for the informant. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the impugned First Information Report dated 31.12.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 720 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the coordinate bench in CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 1543 of 2025 (Sajid and 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), wherein the Division Bench accorded interim relief to the petitioners on the ground that petitioner Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were bona fide purchasers, whereas petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were marginal witnesses to the sale deed in question. He submits that similar indulgence may also be extended in favour of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the relief is opposed by the learned A.G.A. He submits, on instructions, that during the investigation, the complicity of the accused Sajid S/o Mangta, Ashu S/o Zahid, and Deen Mohammad S/o Irfan has been established, and accordingly, the police report has been submitted. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the investigation is still in progress. He further objects that merely on the basis of a hibanama, a third-party interest has been created, wherein the petitioner has been assigned the role of a seller and is also the beneficiary. Therefore, no such indulgence is warranted. 5. Learned counsel for the informant also opposes the relief on the ground that a categorical finding has been returned in favour of the informant by the Consolidation Officer. He submits that criminality cannot be ruled out in the present matter and no interference is required. 6. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not incline to press the writ petition and requests that it may be dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to institute fresh proceedings in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid leave, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 NLY (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad