Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72983 Court No. - 76 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4249 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Gupta And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anchal,Baijant Kumar Mishra,Mayank Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 22.3.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Revision No.148 of 2023, titled Ashutosh Kumar Gupta and another v. State of U.P. and another and order dated 15.7.2023, passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kasya at Kushinagar in Case No.179 of 2017, State v. Gautam Kumar Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No.452 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kasya, District Kushinagar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioners are merely witnesses to a sale deed allegedly executed by one Gautam Kumar Singh, son of Surendra Singh. It is further submitted that Surendra Singh was initially married to Vidyawati Devi, and after her death, he contracted a second marriage with the mother of Gautam Kumar Singh, who is his biological son. Learned counsel also submits that the mutation proceedings in relation to the disputed property have already been adjudicated and allowed by the competent Civil Court. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on paragraph 22 of the order dated 22.03.2024. The dispute in question is essentially of a civil nature and does not warrant criminal prosecution. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners fraudulently executed a sale deed in collusion with the petitioners. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, including the impugned orders, this Court does not find any manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, or impropriety in the orders passed by the trial court that would warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and is to be exercised sparingly, primarily to ensure that the subordinate courts have acted within the bounds of their authority and in accordance with law. In the present case, the findings recorded are based on appreciation of facts and evidence which do not appear to suffer from any patent error. Moreover, the veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioners involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction at this preliminary stage. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 A. Tripathi Vinod Diwakar, J. Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad