Court No. - 40
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 34273 of 2018 Petitioner :- Fazalurrahman And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for respondent No.1,2 and 3 and Mohd. Sami Ullah learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 18.11.2018 in Case Crime No. 930 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Fatehpur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent No.4, who is the divorced wife of deceased brother of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, Rajiurrahman falsely alleging that the petitioners were trying to grab her husband's property on the strength of fake and fabricated documents. Respondent No.4 instituted a case before U.P. Minority Commission, Lucknow for release of money of her husband which has been decided in favour of the petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 succeeded in getting her name mutated through Pa Ka- 11, which was challenged by the petitioners before the Tehsildar vide Case No. T2017022543013805, Case No.T2017022543013806 and Case No. T2017022543013807, in which vide order dated 07.10.2017 the mutation made in favour of respondent No.4 was stayed by the Tehsildar.
It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is one of civil nature which respondent no.4 is trying to settle by taking recourse the criminal proceeding. It has been also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. regarding commission of offence by the petitioners under the aforesaid sections are palpably false and moreover the same do not disclose any cognizable offence. The impugned F.I.R. is thus liable to be quashed.
Per-contra Mohd. Sami Ullaha, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the petitioners after the death of husband of the respondent no.4, alleging that their brother had divorced her wife got their names muted in the revenue records. The marriage between respondent No.4 and petitioners' brother has not been dissolved by any court of competent jurisdiction. Triple Talaq, which is the basis of the petitioners' claim has been declared to be un-constitutinal by the Apex Court and an attempt is being made by the petitioners is to somehow grab the share of husband of respondent No.4's property inherited by the respondent No.4. The petitioners are not entitled for relief claimed by them We have heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material brought on record, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter as we strongly feel that equity is not in favour of the petitioners considering their conduct.
From the perusal of the impugned F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, a prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference in the F.I.R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case the petitioners appear before the court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Abhishek