Mohd. Faruk Alias Chunne vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2356 of 2025

¶3

Mohd. Faruk Alias Chunne

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Firoz Ahmad Khan, Abdul Alim Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 27

¶8

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶9

Reserved on 11.02.2026 Delivered on 15.04.2026

¶10

Court No. - 27

¶11

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶12

Pleadings have also been exchanged between the parties which are on record.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶14

The instant criminal appeal under section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2025 passed by learned Aditional Sessions Judge, Vth/Special Judge Gangster Act, Ayodhya in Gangster Miscellaneous Case no.1125/2022 "State versus Faruk alias Chunne" under Section 16(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as well as judgment and order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned District Magistrate Ayodhya in Case No. 2739 of 2022 [CNR no. D-202204230002739 ] State versus Farukh alias Chunne under section 14(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 whereby learned court below have wrongly confiscated the vehicle of the appellant and rejected the

¶15

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

prayer for release of the vehicle of the appellant, Mahindra Bolero Jeep bearing Registration no. UP-42-CT-0724.

¶18

The facts, in brief, of the case are that in furtherance of the FIR registered under Case Crime Number 167 of 2022, under Section 16(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against the appellant, Mohd Faruk @ Chunne and five others on 30.04.2022, the proceedings were initiated for the confiscation of a Mahindra Bolero Pickup vehicle, bearing Registration No. UP-42CT/0724 at the instance of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya, vide order dated 24.06.2022, addressed to the District Magistrate, Ayodhya. The District Magistrate issued a notice to the appellant for the attachment of the said vehicle on the grounds that it was purchased with income derived from gangster and anti-social activities. The District Magistrate passed an attachment order on June 25, 2022, directing attachment of the said vehicle till further orders. Under Section 14(1) of the Act of 1986, it was also directed in the said order that the attached vehicle would remain in the custody of the S.H.O./S.O. concerned. A copy of the order was issued to the appellant so that he may be able to file a representation for the release of the vehicle. In the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, the estimated value of the vehicle is shown as Rs. 7,00,000/- which is registered in the name of Mohammad Farooq son of Abid, the appellant. It is a goods carrier vehicle, manufactured in the year 2020 which is subject to hypothetication in favor of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Company Limited, Faizabad/Ayodhya, and was purchased on 22.09.2020. The sale amount was of Rs.8,50,870/-.

¶19

In the Gangchart, one case is shown against the appellant, registered under Case No. 28 of 2022 under Sections 3/ 5/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act along with five co-accused persons. Accordingly chargesheet was approved on 27.04.2022 by the District Magistrate. The appellant was enlarged on bail in the said case by the order of this Court dated June 21, 2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Number 6387 of 2022.

¶20

In the present case, under Section 3(1) of the Act, the co-accused, Jane Alam, is shown as the gang leader and it is alleged that for deriving

¶21

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

economic temporal advantages, this money was used to slaughter the progeny of cows, and they are involved in smuggling of beef. The appellant filed an objection before the District Magistrate against the attachment order, dated June 25, 2022, stating that he is the registered owner of the Mahindra Bolero Pickup Vehicle, which he had purchased for Rs.7,66,000/- from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company Limited, out of which Rs.4,41,000/- the finance amount and Rs.1,27,000/- payable as finance charges .The loan is to be repaid in 72 installments. The purchase agreement was done on 3/10/2020. The present offense under section 3(1) of the Act has been registered after two years of purchase of vehicles. He has purchased this vehicle from his own resources, not from any proceeds of offense. He has purchased this vehicle toward his livelihood . He is all alone and is unmarried . This vehicle is lone source of livelihood . He is not having any prior criminal history . He prayed for recall of preliminary attachment order dated 25/6/2022 and release of the vehicle in his favor. He produced Registration Certificate, Finance Papers, Passbook, Agreement, etc. along with his objection. However, the District Magistrate dismissed the objection/application of the appellant dated 17/8/2022 being baseless on the ground that the opposite party cannot produce any reasonable evidence in support of the source of his income, which can reveal that he was paying installments of purchase of the vehicle from valid sources. He directed further action in the matter in the order dated 13/9/2022. The District Magistrate filed a reference before Learned Special Judge, Gangsters Act under section 16(1) of the Act for further action in the matter. The special judge issued a notice under section 16(1) of the Act to the opposite party/appellant- Mohammad Farooq @ Chunne, who appeared before the court of the Special Judge, Gangster Act and filed his representation, in which he has stated that he is not named in the FIR in the solitary case mentioned against him in the Gang Chart under section 3/5/8 of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. He was neither arrested in that case on the spot nor any incriminating material was recovered from him. He had purchased the vehicle of Rs.7,66,000/- on 03.10.2020. He sold his land to Jamirul on 5/2/1918 for Rs. 50,000/- and on 2/10/2020, he sold the ornaments of his mother . He deposited Rs. 90,000/- cash. He used to deposit installments by earning from said vehicle also. He has

¶24

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶25

4

¶26

been falsely implicated in this case under section 3(i) of the Act, after two years of purchase of the vehicle. Thus, there is no material to support the allegation that the said vehicle was purchased from the proceeds of crime.

¶27

Learned court below has considered the representation of the appellant in light of the statutory provisions and the impugned order of the District Magistrate and held that the opposite party/ appellant has failed to establish that the attached vehicle was purchased by him from valid sources of income and that he had been depositing installments from valid income. Whereas, under section 16(5), it is the duty of the applicant to adduce the evidence in this regard. He has not stated this fact that as per the directions issued in the arbitral award, he had deposited the desired money and that there is no claim from any other person on the said vehicle. Therefore, it is obvious that, as of now, the first claim for getting the vehicle released lies with Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Company Limited. It was incumbent upon the opposite party/ appellant to clarify that his claim for the release of the vehicle was above the order of precedence of the financial company. Learned special judge found no infirmity or factual or legal error in the findings and orders of the District Magistrate. He dismissed the representation of the appellant and confirmed the order of the District Magistrate dated 13.09.2022.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders passed by both the courts below are purely illegal, unjust, and improper. The order of the District Magistrate, whereby the vehicle of the appellant was attached, is based on a police report and not based on any independent inquiry. It is a settled principle of law that to attach property under the Act, it must be proved that such property was obtained by the accused through the commission of an offense, and there must be a direct nexus between the commission of the crime and the property earned by him. It is also necessary for the Special Judge to consider whether the property in question was acquired prior to the registration of the case under this Act or prior to the registration of the first case mentioned in the gang chart.

¶29

He next submitted that this Court, in the case of Wasim Khan Vs.

¶30

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶31

5

¶32

State of UP and another , passed in Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2023 decided on 10/5/2023 has stated in paragraphs 19 to 23, which is reproduced as under:-

¶33

"19. It is now well settled that property being made subject matter of an attachment under Section 14 of the Act must have been acquired by a gangster and that too by commission of an offence triable under the Act. The District Magistrate has to record its satisfaction on this point. The satisfaction of the District Magistrate is not open to challenge in any appeal. Only a representation is provided for before the District Magistrate himself under Section 15 of the Act and in case he refuses to release the property on such representation, in that case the person aggrieved has to make a reference to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under the Act. The Court, while dealing with the reference made under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act has to see whether the property was acquired by a gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act and has to enter into the question and record his own finding on the basis of the inquiry held by him under Section 16 of the Act. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the property was not acquired by the gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act, the Court shall order for release of the property in favour of the person from whose possession it was attached.

¶34

The object behind providing the power of judicial scrutiny under Section 16 of the Code is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the District Magistrate in depriving a person of his property and to restore the rule of law, therefore a heavy duty lies upon the Court to hold a formal enquiry to find out the truth with regard to the question, whether the property was acquired by or as a result of the commission of an offence triable under the Act. The order to be passed under Section 17 of the Act must disclose reasons and the evidence in support of finding of the Court. The Court is not empowered to act as a post office or mouthpiece of the State or the

¶35

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶36

6

¶37

District Magistrate. If a person has no criminal history during the period the property was acquired by him, how the property can be held to be a property acquired by or as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act is a pivotal question which has to be answered by the Court. Besides, the aforesaid question, the other important question to be considered by the Court is whether the property which was acquired prior to the registration of the case against the accused under the Act or prior to the registration of the first case of the Gangster chart can be attached by District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act.

¶38

The provisions of Section 14 of the Act, referred to above, empowers the District Magistrate to attach the property acquired by the Gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under this Act. The District Magistrate may appoint an Administrator of any property attached, to administer such property in the best interest thereof but there must be reason to believe that any property whether moveable or immovable in possession of any person, has been acquired by a Gangster as a result of commission of an offence, triable under this Act but the District Magistrate in its order has not recorded his satisfaction having reason to believe with regard to the property attached that it was acquired by appellant as a result of commission of an offence triable under Gangster Act, even though while deciding the reference under Section 16 of the Act, the court below does not appreciate the evidence and in a mechanical manner passed the impugned order relying upon the observations made by the District Magistrate which is illegal and an unjustified approach.

¶39

20. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Maina Devi versus State of U.P. 2013(83) ACC 902 in paras8, 9 and 10 has been pleased to held as under:-

¶40

"8. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and

¶41

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶42

7

¶43

the learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that the issue involved in the present case may be resolved with the help of the consideration of the provisions of section 14, 15 and 17 of the Gangsters Act, which read as under:

¶44

15. Release of property-"(1) Where any property is attached under section 14, the claimant thereof may within three months from the date of knowledge of such attachment make a representation to the District Magistrate showing the circumstances in and the sources by which such property was acquired by him.

¶45

(2) If the District Magistrate is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made under sub-section (1) he shall forthwith release the property from attachment and thereupon such property shall be made over to the claimant.

¶46

17. Order after inquiry : If upon such inquiry the Court finds that the property was not acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of any offence triable under this Act it shall order for release of the property of the person from whose possession it was attached. In any other case the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal of the property by attachment, confiscation or delivery to any person entitled to the possession thereof, or otherwise.

¶47

9. In light of above mentioned provisions of the Gangster Act the District Magistrate is empowered to attach movable or immovable properties in possession of any person acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act. But for exercising such powers there must be the reason to believe to the District Magistrate that such property was acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act. The words reason to believe are stronger than the word "satisfied" it must be passed on reasons which are relevant and material. In the

¶48

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶49

8

¶50

present case, from the perusal of the lower Court record it appears that only on the basis of the police report submitted by the officer incharge of P.S. Sarai Lak-hansi, District Mau, the District Magistrate, Mau has attached two houses of the appellant, no material was supplied to the District Magistrate to have a reason to believe that the property in question was acquired by the gangster Raj Bahadur Singh as a result of commission of an offence triable under this Act. It vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate also. The learned District Magistrate was having no material in support of the police report that both the houses of the appellant were acquired by his son Raj Bahadur Singh. The learned District Magistrate rejected the application under section 15 of the Gangsters Act moved by the appellant for releasing the attached houses. The application was moved well within the time, the application was a representation to the District Magistrate, Mau, it was having all the details disclosing the sources by which both the houses were acquired by the appellant. But learned District Magistrate did not consider the sources disclosed by the appellant and rejected the application vide order dated 29.12.2008. The explanation of all the sources by which the appellant acquired the houses has not been properly considered. Therefore, impugned order dated 29.12.2008 has become illegal. The learned Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Azamgarh rejected the application moved by the appellant under section 17 of the Gangsters Act without considering the provisions of the section 14 of the Gangsters Act and the relevancy of the reasons recorded by the District Magistrate to believe that both the attached houses were acquired by a gangster Raj Bahadur Singh son of the appellant as a result of commission of an offence triable under this Act. The order dated 17.3.2009 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2 of 2009 is also illegal.

¶51

10. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by

¶52

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶53

9

¶54

District Magistrate, Mau under section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act attaching two houses of the appellant the order dated 29.12.2008 passed by District Magistrate, Mau by which the application under section 15(1)(2) of the Gangster Act has been rejected and the order dated 17.3.2009 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2 of 2009 are illegal, the same are hereby set aside and the District Magistrate, Mau is hereby directed to release both the houses No. 204-D/8 and 205-D/9 situated in Mohalla Chandmari, Imiliyan, P.S. Sarai Lak-hansi, District Mau in favour of the appellant forthwith.

¶55

21. Further, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Sri Ram versus State of U.P. 2007(2) ALJ 483 (All) in paras-9, 10 and 11 has been pleased to held as under:-

¶56

9. The conjoint reading of these sections shows that first it has to be proved that gangster or any person on his behalf is or has been in possession of the property, and such property has been acquired by the commission of any offence triable under this Act, only then the District Magistrate acquires jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and to attach the property. Only when the initial burden is discharged, the onus shifts to the gangster or such person, to account for the same satisfactorily. But if it is found that the concerned person was not a gangster and did not acquire the property in commission of any offence triable under this Act, it has to be released as provided in Section 17. In other words the initial burden is on the prosecution to show that the concerned person is a gangster and has acquired property on account of his criminal activity as triable under the Act.

¶57

10. Therefore, in order to proceed under section 14 there must be materials for objective determination of the District Magistrate that the person is either a member, leader or

¶58

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶59

10

¶60

organiser of a gang and has acquired any property in commission of any offence under the Act. There must be a nexus between his criminal acts as enumerated therein and the property acquired by him. His mere involvement in any offence is not sufficient to attach his property. In other words what is necessary to find is whether, his acquisition of property was a result of commission of any offence enumerated in the Act being a member, leader or organiser of a gang. One might have committed several offences but if the property acquired by him was with the aid of his earning from legal resources no action under Section 14 of the Act can be taken against him.

¶61

11. In the case of Badan Singh alias Baddo v. State of U.P., 2002 Cri LJ 1392 : 2001 All LJ 2852 it has been held by this Court that Section 14 of the Act is a harsh provision that affects one's right to property, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution. Therefore, initial burden was upon the State to satisfy the District Magistrate with necessary materials that a gangster acquired the properties as a result of commission of any offence. It has also been held in this case that the Act does not provide that the aggrived person seeking release of the properties from attachment must prove the source of income for acquisition thereof.

¶62

22. Further, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajbir Singh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Others 2018 SCC Online AII 5986 in paras 16 and 18 has been pleased to held as under:

¶63

"16. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid two definitions what appears is that for taking action under Section 14 against a person, there must be materials for objective determination of the District Magistrate that he either as a member, leader or organizer of a gang acquired any property as a result of commission of any offence under the Act. There must be nexus between his criminal act and the property acquired by him. His mere involvement in any offence is not sufficient to attach his

¶64

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶65

11

¶66

property. In other words, what is necessary to find is whether his acquisition of property was as a result of commission of any offence enumerated in the Act being a member, leader or organizer of a gang. One might have committed several offences, but if the property acquired by him was with the aid of his earning from legal source, no action under Section 14 of the Act can be taken against him.

¶67

18. Section 14 of the Act is a harsh provision that affects one's right to property which is a constitutional right under the Constitution. Therefore, initial burden was upon the State to satisfy the District Magistrate with necessary materials that petitioner Rajbir Singh Tyagi being a gangster acquired the properties as a result of commission of any offence. That was however, not done. So, complaining the attachment order to be illegal, a move was made by the petitioners by filing a representation for release of the properties. The said prayer was rejected with the observation that the petitioners could not establish the source of income to build the house and acquire the movables. This approach of the District Magistrate, in my opinion, has no sanction under law. The Act does not provide that-aggrieved person seeking release of the properties from attachment must prove the source of income for acquisition thereof. So, on a conspectus of the relevant provisions of the Act, I am of the considered opinion that the order of attachment passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar is illegal, arbitrary and against the weight of the materials on record.â€

¶68

23. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law and the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Maina Devi versus State of U.P. 2013(83) ACC 902 and Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Sri Ram versus State of U.P. 2007(2) ALJ 483 (All), and Rajbir Singh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Others 2018 SCC Online AII 5986 , this Court is of the view that the properties, which were attached, were acquired by the appellant with the aid of his earning from legal resources and

¶69

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶70

12

¶71

not by commission of any offence triable under the Act as it is settled law that the properties being made subject matter of attachment under Section 14 of the Act must have been acquired by a gangster and that too by commission of an offence triable under the Act and also the impugned orders were not passed on reasons which are relevant and material. In the present case from the perusal of the impugned order dated 13.4.2022 and record it appears that only on the basis of the police report, the District Magistrate has attached the property in question, no material was supplied to the District Magistrate to have reasons to believe that the property in question was acquired by the gangster the present appellant as a result of commission of any offence triable under this Act. It vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate also from the record. It appears that the District Magistrate has no material in support of the police report that the property in question was acquired by the present appellant being gangster even though the proceedings were not followed as per the provisions of the Act. It appears that the appellant was having enough source of income from his business at Mumbai as well as at his native place, from which the appellant had acquired the properties and even the properties were acquired by the appellant much prior to the registration of criminal cases and imposition of Gangster Act, which was invoked in the year 2021 and the impugned order of attachment was passed in mechanical manner without application of mind and is arbitrary. Thus the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow and the impugned order dated 5.1.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.8/Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Lucknow are illegal and the same are liable to be quashed."

¶72

He next submitted that in the present case from the perusal of the impugned order dated 27/5/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge and the records placed before the learned Special Judge, it is evident that only on the basis of presumption and faulty police report, the District

¶73

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶74

13

¶75

Magistrate has attached the property in question. No material was supplied to the District Magistrate to have "reason to believe" that the property in question was acquired by the alleged gangster as a result of the commission of any offense triable under this Act. The learned Special Judge committed a manifest error of law for the reason that in the impugned order he has already stated that an arbitral award has been passed against the appellant and as such he has no right, order, or title to move a release application. Such a finding is not sustainable in the eye of the law.

¶76

He lastly submitted that the object behind providing the power of judicial scrutiny under Section 16(1) of the Act is to check an arbitrary exercise of power by the District Magistrate in depriving a person of his property and to restore the Rule of law. Therefore, a heavy burden lies on the court to hold a thorough inquiry to find out the truth as regards the question whether the property was actually acquired by or as a result of the commission of any offense triable under the Act, but in the instant case, no such inquiry was carried out. The learned Special Judge has affirmed the order of the District Magistrate in a casual and mechanical manner.

¶77

Per Contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the appellant failed to establish that the vehicle in question was purchased with his valid income. He has filed documents regarding financing of the vehicle from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Company Limited, but he cannot show the mode, manner, and payment of the installments in a regular manner.

¶78

In the present case, from a perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant purchased the vehicle in question, a Mahindra Bolero Pickup, registration number UP-42-CT/ 0724 on 3/10/2020 by getting its finance from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company for Rs.766,000/payable in 72 installments. According to the appellant, the first installment was payable on 10/11/2020 and the last installment was payable up to September 2026. He stated in the application filed before the district magistrate that he deposited Rs.2,37,000/- towards repayment of the vehicle loan up to 26/02/2022. The date of purchase of the vehicle and other particulars as stated by the appellant, are corroborated by the

¶79

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶80

14

¶81

certificate of Registration of the vehicle, filed as Annexure No.6. In the gang chart, one case is shown in the gang chart against the appellant under Section 3/5/8 of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, which was registered on 16/01/2022, in which the plaintiff was not named. His name surfaced during the investigation and he was arrested by the police on 3/4/2022 and he was enlarged on bail by this court on 21/06/2022. Subsequently, on the basis of this case penal sections of the UP Gangster Act were invoked against him on 30/04/2024. Thus, the vehicle in question was purchased by the appellant prior to the registration of the first case against him, is found basis of the proceedings against him under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities ( Prevention) Act.

¶82

In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that the vehicle was purchased by the appellant out of his illegal earnings. The appellant has given specific evidence that he purchased the said vehicle by getting the same financed by a financing company and the installments were to be paid within a period of 5 years. He has also filed a copy of a sale deed executed by him on 3/6/2018 in respect of his agricultural land in favor of one Jamirul which reveals that prior to the lodging of the criminal case against him, he sold an agricultural land.

¶83

Learned trial Court has proceeded on the presumption that the appellant failed to show that the property in question was not acquired out of the income derived fro illegal sources. Learned Trial Court has misconstrued Section 4(b) and has reached at a wrong conclusion. This section clearly provides that first it has to be proved that the gangster or any person on his behalf is or has at any time been in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot satisfactorily account for or where his pecuniary resources are disproportionate to his known sources of income and only then the presumption can be raised against him if he fails to prove the contrary

¶84

Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has sufficiently shown the reasons that he has purchased the vehicle in question by legal means and out of his own sources. The proceedings under the Act of 1989 are still pending against him.

¶85

CRLA No. 2356 of 2025

¶86

15

¶87

Consequently, in the light of aforesaid discussions and findings, the appeal is hereby allowed for the foregoing discussion and findings and the impugned orders dated 13/09/2022 passed by District Magistrate, Ayodhya as well as the appellate order dated 27.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vth/ Special Judge, Gangster Act, Ayodhya passed in Gangster Misc. Case No. 1125 of 2022 are hereby quashed. District Magistrate, Ayodhya is directed to release the vehicle in question in favor of the appellant.

¶88

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶89

April 15, 2026 dk/

¶90

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Faruk Alias Chunne v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Faruk Alias Chunne v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Kayamuddin vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Amarjeet and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nyay Lucknow and Another

Rohit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Indrajeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Abdul Majeed and 12 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another