Partly allowed

Manish Prakash Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2024CRLP/617/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging forgery and fabrication of documents to enhance land area. The High Court allowed the investigation to continue but ordered interim restraint on arrest.

What did the court decide?

Investigation may continue; petitioners not to be arrested mechanically absent sufficient evidence; they must record statement within one month.

Manish Prakash Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 617 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Manish Prakash Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Kishore Tiwari,Anand Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. , Ankit Kumar Pandey,Hairdaya Narain Tiwari,Kumar Ayush

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed today by Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no. 6 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of First Information Report dated 5.1.2024 bearing case Crime No.5 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station- Ashiyana District- Lucknow.

¶8

The main allegation against the petitioners is that fabricated order dated 6.7.1982 was prepared, which was made the basis for enhancing the Rakba of Gata No. 184 Ka, which was originally recorded in the name of Azoora Khatoon and based thereon a sale deed was got executed from the legal heirs of Azoora Khatoon in their favour taking advantage of their position, as it is the allegation that husband of the opposite party no. 3 was A.D.M., Revenue at Lucknow.

¶9

Based on the aforesaid order dated 6.7.1982 the Rakba of Gata No. 184- Ka was claimed as enhanced from 3 bighas to 5 bighas. It is the case in the F.I.R. that the aforesaid 3 bighas of Gata No. 184- Ka was acquired in 1985 and, therefore, no land was left in the name of Azoora Khatoon but based on the aforesaid order somehow it is being claimed by the petitioners that they are owners of remaining 2 bighas of land based on the order dated 6.7.1982 having purchased the said 2 bighas of land from the legal heirs of Azoora Khatoon.

¶10

The case of the informant is that Azoora Khatoon was the tenure holder of only 3 bighas, which was acquired in 1985 for the LDA and no land remained for being sold by the legal heirs of Azoora Khatoon in favour of the petitioners but the

¶11

petitioners connived with the legal heirs of Azoora Khatoon fabricated the order dated 6.7.1982 claimed enhanced Rakba of 5 bighas in respect of the Gata No. 184- Ka to get the sale deed executed and then claimed rights over these 2 bibhas after getting the area of adjacent plot which, in fact, is a pond in the revenue record reduced by 2 bighas.

¶12

It is also the case of counsel for the informant today based on a supplementary affidavit filed by him that in fact the said order dated 6.7.1982 is said to have been passed by an Additional Consolidation Officer, Lucknow, whereas the said post had not been created in 1982 as per information received by him under the RTI. The entire exercise is based on fabricated and forged documents.

¶13

The counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, contends that there are consolidation records which mention the order passed under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 by which the order dated 6.7.1982 was implemented and the Rakba of Gata No. 184-Ka was enhanced from 3 bighas to 5 bighas. He also mentions about certain proceedings pending before the Consolidation Officer, however, in this context, counsel for the informant says that in fact the veracity of the order dated 6.7.1982 allegedly passed by the Additional Consolidation Officer was found to be suspect by the SOC, Lucknow in appeal bearing no. 186 of 2018 filed by Nagar Nigam against the petitioners under Section 11 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the said order was set aside on 6.7.1982 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration to the Consolidation Officer on 13.8.2018, where it is pending.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid and looking into the pendency of the proceedings beyond the Consolidation Officer, it is provided that the Investigating Officer may continue with the investigation. If he finds that the order dated 6.7.1982 is forged, fabricated and non existent and the petitioners herein have a hand in committing such offence or there are any other offences in which the petitioners may be involved then he can proceed in accordance with law, which may include arrest of the petitioners, however, unless there is sufficient and cogent evidence available in this regard, though he may continue with the investigation but he shall not arrest the petitioners mechanically.

¶15

To clarify our order, if the Investigating Officer finds any evidence about the involvement of the petitioners in the crime alleged, then it shall be open for him to proceed in accordance with law and also to arrest the petitioners, if there is a cause in

¶16

law but, unless and until there is such evidence he shall not mechanically arrest the petitioners merely on the basis of the allegations contained in the F.I.R. Petitioners shall get their statement recorded before the Investigation Officer within one month from today failing which it can be made a ground for seeking vacation of this interim order.

¶17

We further make it clear that our order shall have no bearing on any civil, revenue or consolidation proceedings, which may be pending in respect of the land in question before any court or authority. We have also not entered into the question as to who is in possession of the plot or entitled to be in possession thereof or may claim title in respect of it.

¶18

Let the pleadings be exchanged within eight weeks.

¶19

List thereafter.

¶20

(Narendra Kumar Johari,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 26.2.2024 Anuj Singh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manish Prakash Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Prakash Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Swatantra Kumar Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Others

Tariq Yusuf Khan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Vishal Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Anwar Gafoor Shaikh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Govt. Lko. and Others

Veeru Alias Veer Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Moh. Shaban Alias Vaseem Alias Mo. Saban vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others