Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65950-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7689 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sahab Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Samar Bahadur Harijan,Sonu Nirmal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A.-I for the State respondents and Shri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 13.02.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 68 of 2025, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Sasni Kotwali, District- Hathras and with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that The petitioners are lawful occupants of land plot no. 489/6, which came into their possession through a valid residential lease dated 03.05.1970. They have constructed a Pakka house and have been living there since 1997, with a regular electricity connection obtained in 2006. Despite this long-standing possession, respondent no. 4, with mala fide intent, filed a false application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to registration of the impugned FIR by arbitrary order of the Magistrate. The petitioners strongly deny the false charges and claim that they are legally living on the land without doing anything wrong, and the police are troubling them without reason, so the impugned FIR should be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer and submitted that objections were earlier filed by the informant's father, namely Bishan Swaroop, under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, in view of the consolidation proceedings. The said objections, along with the appeal and revision, were dismissed. However, the orders were challenged in writ proceedings, and the writ petition was allowed with an observation that the objection filed by the informant’s father under Section 9-A(2) stood allowed and his name shall be recorded as a tenure-holder. Further, Bishan Swaroop, son of Banwaril Lal, had filed a suit for injunction against the State and the Gaon Sabha, seeking to restrain them from interfering with his possession over the disputed land. Though injunction was initially granted by the trial court, the same was set aside by the appellate court. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the appellate order was erroneous, as the prima facie case and title of the informant's father had already been upheld by this Court in judgment dated 06.09.2007 in Writ Petition No.27901 of 2005 in relation to the same agricultural holding. Reliance has also been placed on the order dated 20.04.2012 passed in Writ – C No. 54480 of 2006 (Bishan Swaroop vs. Gaon Sabha Lauharra and others), wherein the Court observed as follows: "Be that as it may, once the High Court has declared the petitioner to be a Bhumidhar of the land in dispute and has issued directions for recording of his name as such in the revenue records no further proceedings can be allowed to continue before the trial court in a suit for injunction as the judgment of the High Court shall supersede all such proceedings before the court below. Accordingly, all further proceedings before the court below shall remain stayed." 5. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that the order dated 20.04.2012 has attained finality and has not been challenged at any point. Therefore, the rights of the informant, as declared therein, cannot be disturbed. 6. Considering the factual situation and the impugned FIR, we find that cognizable offence is made out which warrants no intereference in writ jurisdiction. 7. Confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners do not want to press the writ petition and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Needless to say, in case the petitioners are aggrieved, they may apply before the competent court for bail/ anticipatory bail in accordance with law. It is further observed that the observations made above would not prejudice the rights of the parties and the same are only for disposal of the instant writ petition. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 NLY (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad