Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47985-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1088 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohit Bhati and 9 others Respondent :- State of U.P. and 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar,Babboo Ram,G.A.,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and the learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents. 2. The petitioners, by means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 05.12.2024 in Case Crime No. 0562 of 2024, under Section 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023, Police Station Beeta-2, District Greater Noida (Commissionerate - Gautam Budh Nagar). Further prayed not to arrest the petitioners in the aforementioned case. 3. The record reflects that the informant, who claim to be one of the director of the company M/s Vaishnav Builtech Pvt. Ltd. established on 14.07.2006. In the year 2017, as there was huge outstanding of Rs. 1,97,22,470 till 27.04.2017 of Income Tax Department, a notice was sent for dissolution of the Company on 30.06.2017 and therefore, Income Tax Department attached the property of the company. Surprisingly, one of the director in order to usurp the property had illegally executed a general power of attorney in favour of petitioner no. 2 on 20.06.2019, in which they have categorically stated that the power of attorney holder is allowed to sell the land held by the company, in spite of the fact that said land was attached by the Income Tax Department. On the basis of power of attorney, the land was sold to petitioner no. 1 on 08.07.2019 who happened to be husband of power of attorney holder. Thereafter an F.I.R. was lodged on 05.12.2024 which has been assailed by the petitioners by means of instant writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that private respondents had got a power of attorney executed as he was a lawyer and was executed just to follow up the cases before the Income Tax Department and other authorities, where the matter was pending and by misusing the general power of attorney, he has illegally sold of the land belonging to the company. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that dispute is purely civil in nature and proceedings before the appropriate authorities either civil or revenue court is going on. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also banked upon the proceedings which has been initiated before the Income Tax Department and submits that the dispute is to be resolved by the competent Court, therefore the invocation of criminality cannot be attached in the instant matter as the transaction were bona fide on the basis of general power of attorney. 6. Shri. V.P. Shrivastava Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the informant submitted that the FIR was lodged by one of the Director who had executed the power of attorney and alleged power of attorney was executed on misrepresentation of the fact that the petitioner No. 2 who by profession was lawyer would handle the cases before various authorities and the Court. He further submitted that the amount of sale consideration of Rs. 3,88,00,000/- was paid to Sunita who happened to be one of the Director of the company, on the very same day Sunita transferred the money to his son Gagan and Gagan thereafter transferred the money to Naval Singh who happened to be the Father- in-law of the petitioner No. 1. Naval Singh, again transferred the money to petitioner No. 1. Apparently the sale deed was nothing, but sham transaction, made only to usurp the property which was attached to the Income Tax Department. 7. Learned AGA on the instruction submits that the investigation is in progress, meanwhile two accused persons have already been arrested. 8. Considering the factual situation as enumerated above, we are of the considered opinion, once the property was attached under the I.T. Act, ,as there was outstanding amount, in such a situation the power of attorney is sham. Heavy reliance has also been placed upon the general power of attorney for ready reference the relevant portion of the power of attorney mentioned at page no. 50 of the writ petition, is extracted herein below:- " वववदत हह वक गगम वतलपतग करनवगस परगनग व तहससल दगदरस जजलग गगतमबबदनगर कक खगतग सस० 169 कक खसरग नस० 901 रकबग 1.1610 हह० मम सक 5852.69 वगर मसटर अरगरत 7000 वगर गज व खगतग सस० 496 कक खसरग नस० 903 रकबग 1.5930 हह० मम सक 4119.87 वगर मसटर अरगरत 4928 वगर गज इस पकगर कब ल दह खकत कब ल रकबग 11928 वगर गज अरगरत 9972.56 वगर मसटर भभवम जजसकग मम फरसक अववल ससकमणसय भभवमधर मगजलक व कगवबज हह। परम पक हसतगकरकतगर नरकनद भगटस कह कमपनस कक रकजबलकशन पतगसक सस० 003 वदनगसक 04/06/2019 कक दगरग उक भभवम कह ववकय/ इकरगरनगमग मगहदगवय आवद करनक कग अजधकगर पगप हह। जह वक फरसक सववल कक ओर सक आज वदन तक हर पकगर कक कजगर सरकगरस व गहर सरकगरस आवद सक सगफ हह। वकसस अनय जगह लहन गसत यग वगद गसत नहह हम। फरसक अववल कह अपनक उपरहक भभवम कह ववकय आवद करनक कक बगबत हर पकगर कक कगनभनस अजधकगर पगप हम।" 9. The informant himself has categorically stated in the extracted portion of power of attorney that while executing the power of attorney, no such dues remains over the property in question and has allowed to sell the land which has been attached by the Income Tax Authority. 10. In such situation, prima facie we find that the transaction is sham transaction and the power of attorney was executed in connivance of the informant. The entire transaction seems to have been done to overcome the attachment of the property. 11. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses cognizable offences against the petitioners and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances, the instant writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 13. We further clarify that the above observations are made only for disposal of instant matter and the same would have no bearing in the investigation/trial. We further observe that the fair investigation must be insured in the instant matter but certainly under the supervision of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Police. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Bhanu (Prashant Kumar,J.) (M. C. Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad