Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14801 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kismati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Grijesh Tiwari Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for informant -respondent no.4 and learned AGA for the State- respondents . 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 13.6.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0326 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS-2023, at Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur, and a direction to the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned first information report. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegations in FIR is that late Deep Narayan, father of informant had purchased the disputed land Arazi No.368 from one Ram Kishun in the year 1962 and that land was sold by the petitioner in favour of the other co-accused Ratan Lal Nishad. It has been stated that the present petitioner Kismati Devi was married to late Chhangur, who was son of Ram Kishun. The land devolved upon her after death of her husband Chhangur. She being daughter in law of late Ram Kishun is entitled as an owner of the land after death of her husband. He submits that the name of the informant was never recorded in the revenue record. Even a temporary injunction in respect of the said land was passed in favour of co- accused Ratan Lal Nishad in O.S. No.117 of 2025 ( Ratan Lal Nishad Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra). Henceforth, this FIR was lodged by the informant being unsuccessful in civil litigation. One of the co-accused Ratan Lal Nishad was also accorded interim relief by this Court on 11.7.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14629 of 2025 ( Ratan Lal Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others). 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 however, in opposition, has submitted that disputed property was purchased by the father of the respondent no.4, Sri Deep Narayan in the year 1962 and name of the informant was mutated after death of his father. Petitioner who is daughter in law of Ram Kishun was never recorded as tenure holder in revenue records and fraudulently sold the disputed land without any title to another accused Ratan Lal Nishad. Learned counsel has also placed records of right before this Court to show entries made in his favour after the death of his father. He has further submitted that report of Halka Lekhpal has clearly mentioned that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed executed by the present petitioner is same to that of the sale deed which was executed by father-in-law( Ram Kishun) in favour of informant's father in the year 1962. 5. After hearing the learned counsel and after perusing the revenue records produced by the respondent no.4, when we expressed our disinclination to grant any relief, as we found that a cognizable offence is made out from the facts placed before us, learned counsel for petitioner strenuously argued that co-accused in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14629 of 2025 ( Ratan Lal Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) was granted relief by this Court and present petitioner is also on a same footing. Replying to the said contention, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 stated that his Caveat was filed in that Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14629 of 2025 ( Ratan Lal Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) and was also filed in this present petition, and the caveat was not reported in the earlier petition. Due to this reason, respondent was unable to place the actual facts before the Court and the petitioner in that case had secured the interim relief by placing incorrect facts. 6. From the perusal of the averments made in the FIR and entries in record of rights as placed by the respondent no.4, we are of the view that act committed by the petitioner does not entitle her any relief as it ex-facie appears that she has sold the disputed property without any title. So far as the relief granted to another co-accused in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14629 of 2025 ( Ratan Lal Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) is concerned, the same could not be a ground to grant relief to present petitioner because respondent no.4 was not heard while passing the order in the said writ petition. After we heard both the parties, we found that entire story as narrated by the petitioner is just opposite to the actual facts. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law. Order Date :- 21.7.2025/Mukesh Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad