Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90973-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11030 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Afreen And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J. 1. Heard Sri Girish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State respondents. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 18.5.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 82 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Ajeem Nagar, District Rampur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per first information report the husband of the informant died on 17.12.2024 and she has received the property through inheritance on 27.1.2025, whereas in fact the gift deed had already been executed on 21.1.2025. It is next submitted that the informant had also filed a suit for cancellation of gift deed dated 21.1.2025 on 18.3.2205 being O.S. No. 49 of 2025 (Masum Jahan vs. Waris Ali and others), therefore, no offence as alleged is made out. 4. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence. 5. On perusal of record we find that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners as husband of the informant died on 7.12.2024 and as natural consequences the informant received property through inheritance immediately after death of her husband and during course of argument it is admitted that the name of the informant was entered in the revenue records on 27.1.2025. We further find that the gift deed is shown to have been executed on 21.1.2025 and the allegation is of impersonation and mutation of the name of the informant subsequently is of no consequence as she had already received the property on death of her husband and being a case of impersonation a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. In such view of the matter, pendency of the civil dispute is of no help to the petitioners. 6. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Lalit Shukla Digitally signed by :- LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad