Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Animesh Mitra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Advocate General, assisted by Sri Pracheesh Pandey, learned A.G.A. and Sri Abhishek Singh, learned Advocate, for the State and perused the First Information Report and the material on record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mukhtar Ansari, seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 27.8.2020 lodged by opp. party no.5, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 0236 of 2020, under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow with a further prayer to stay of his arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner and his two sons, namely, Abbas Ansari and Umar Ansari by opp. party no.5 on 27.8.2020, which has been registered as Case Crime No.0236 of 2020, under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow.
4. As per the averments made in the impugned F.I.R. that the land situated in Village Jiamau, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow for Khasra No.93, area 05-03-10 Bigha was registered in the name of Mohd. Wasim, son of Nasim Sahab in Fasli Year 1359 (which correspondents to the year 1949 A.D.) as Mathatdar. Mohd. Wasim migrated to Pakistan in Fasli Year 1362 (corresponds to Year 1952) and as such the aforesaid land in question has been recorded as evacuee property in the register of Board of Revenue at Serial at RHZ-1/1 in evacuee property register No.10. In the Fasli Year 1369-70 (correspondents to the Year 1959-60 AD), the name of Laxmi Narayan, son of Maiku was entered in the revenue record without the orders of any competent authority and again in the Fasli Year 1380 (correspondents to the year 1970 AD) the name of one Sri Krishna Kumar, son of Thakur Das, R/o 98/6, Latouch Road, Lucknow was entered without consent in Category No.5 as 'Mathatdar'.The allegation in the impugned F.I.R is that at the relevant time, the aforesaid evacuee property has been got registered under Category No.5 by manipulating and tempering with the documents and causing disappearance of revenue record. On the close scrutiny of the record of 1371 Fasli (correspondents to 1961 AD), 1372 Fasli (correspondents to 1962 AD) and 1374 Fasli (correspondents to 1964 AD), was got disappeared, so as to showing the name of persons who were illegally entered in revenue record could not be known. The allegations in the F.I.R. is that in spite of conscious of the fact that the property in question is an evacuee property and the ownership is vested in the Government, the petitioner and his two sons using their influence got the map passed on evacuee property and illegally possessed the said land and constructed a house, the value of which was in Crores, as they are instrumental in disappearance of the relevant revenue record. On 14.8.2020, the revenue records have been corrected by the competent authority of the Government and again recorded the property as evacuee property and the revenue records have been corrected accordingly and on the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner and his two sons by respondent no.5, In-charge Lekhpal, Jiamau, District Lucknow.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was born in the year 1963 and in the F.I.R. the allegation regarding manipulation and disappearance of the documents are of the years 1961, 1962 and 1964, thus, at the time of commission of offence, the petitioner was at the age of one year only and as such, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be held liable for the offence as mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. He further argued that after 68 years of the incident, revenue records have been allegedly corrected and the same has been registered as Evacuee Property, the impugned F.I.R. registered on 14.8.2020 is nothing but for the harassment of the petitioner due to political rivalry.
6. He next submitted that on 2.4.1997, Krishna Kumar sold a part of the aforesaid property (8 Biswa, 16 Biswansi and 4 Kachwansi) to Smt. Shakila Begum, wife of Moin Ahmad, resident of Mohalla Lala-ka-Purwa, Sultanpur by means of a sale deed. Thereafter, Smt. Shakila Begum sold the aforesaid part of land to Dr. Syed Shahid Hussain, resident of Dilkusha Plaza, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Husainganj, District Lucknow through a sale deed on 1.11.2000. Thereafter, the aforesaid land was sold by Dr. Syed Shahid Hussain to Subhan Ullah Ansari, father of the petitioner, resident of Yusufpur, Police Station Mohamdabad, Ghazipur by means of a sale deed dated 9.3.2004. Subhan Ullah Ansari, father of the petitioner, died on 29.12.2006. The father of the petitioner, namely, Subhan Ullah Ansari in his life time had orally gifted the aforesaid property to his wife Smt. Rabia Begum (mother of the petitioner) in presence of his legal successors. Thereafter, in the year 2017, Smt. Rabia Begum, mother of the petitioner, applied for passing of the map for construction of the building on the aforesaid land before the Lucknow Development Authority and vide order dated 7.2.2018 passed by the competent authority, map was approved subject to payment of certain dues. After the aforesaid order dated 7.2.2018, Smt. Rabia Begum fell seriously ill and she ultimately died on 29.12.2018.
7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in her life time, Smt. Rabia Begum, mother of the petitioner, had executed a 'Will Deed' with the consent of her legal heirs and successors with regard to property in favour of her grand-sons, namely, Abbas Ansari and Umar Ansari who have also been made co-accused in the impugned F.I.R. It was further submitted that the aforesaid property (Khasara No.93, area 08 Biswa, 16 Biswansi, 04 Kachwansi) (11992.61 sq. ft.) has not been entered in the revenue record or any other Government record in the name of the petitioner, nor the same has been mutated in the name of the petitioner. He vehemently argued that Smt. Rabia Begum (since deceased) was the owner of the property in question, had transferred the rights of the aforesaid property through registered 'Will Deed' in favour of her grand-sons, namely, Abbas Ansari and Umar Ansari who are the co-accused in the present F.I.R. and not in favour of the petitioner, and as such, the petitioner has no concern with the present commission of offence as alleged in the impugned F.I.R. even in remote manner.
8. It is argued that due to malafide intention and political rivalry at the behest of the State Authorities who are acting on the dictate of of State Government against the petitioner and his family members,the impugned F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner and his two sons. It is further argued that the petitioner himself is a sitting M.L.A. from Constituency of Mau (Sadar) and he has opposed the candidate of ruling party of the State of U.P., and due to political rivalry, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The brother of the petitioner, namely, Sri Afzal Ansari is a sitting Member of Parliament from Ghazipur Constituency, has won the election in the year 2019 defeating the former Union Minister of Railways.
9. He further argued that the sons of the petitioner, who are co-accused in the present F.I.R., have challenged the impugned F.I.R. by means of filing Writ Petition No.16143 (MB) of 2020 before this Court, titled as 'Abbas Ansari and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which their arrest have been stayed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.10.2020, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-18 to the writ petition.
10. It was lastly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that presently, the petitioner is lodged in Jail at District Jail Ropad (Roopnagar), Punjab in connection with Case Crime No.5 of 2019, under Sections 386, 506 I.P.C., District Mohali, Punjab. The petitioner is in jail since 2005, much prior to the last transaction of land in favour of the sons of the petitioner and as such the petitioner is not involved in any manner in the commission of offence in question. The impugned F.I.R. does not disclose any offence against the petitioner and the same has been lodged just for the purpose of harassment with oblique motive and political rivalry, hence, be quashed.
11. Learned Advocate General on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioner and submitted that it discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner. He vehemently rebutted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the petitioner has a long criminal antecedents, his involvement in manipulating and tempering with the revenue records as well as missing of revenue record cannot be ruled out. The property in question is a evacuee property and the petitioner being conscious of the same, has got its documents and other records disappeared, though he has been confined in jail since 2005 but he being a political person having influence, has conspired in the commission of the offences in question. He further argued that the order dated 14.8.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector declaring the Khasra No.93 situated in Village Jiamau, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow as evacuee property, though was quashed by this Court on a technical ground as the notice was issued to a dead person and the matter was remanded back by this Court and the same is still sub-judice. There has been deep rooted conspiracy for forgery and fabrication made in the revenue records and the fact that the petitioner was born in the year 1963 and he was minor and aged about one year only, cannot be a ground for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. as the manipulation and tempering has been done in the revenue records.The matter is still under investigation. Moreover, the F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner and since the petitioner is already confined in jail, there is no apprehension of his arrest in the present case.
12. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding writ petition filed by the two sons of the petitioner for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. in Writ Petition No.16143 (MB) of 2020 and grant of interim relief to them is concerned, he states that the impugned F.I.R. cannot be quashed in bits and pieces and so far as the case of the petitioner with respect to interim relief is concerned, is altogether different from his sons as the petitioner's sons apprehended their arrest who are not in jail and on account of which they have been granted interim relief by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.10.2020.
13. It was further argued by the learned Advocate General that the petitioner on his own showing in para no.57 has disclosed his criminal antecedents, which is quoted here-in-below:-
Police Station and District Crime No. & Case No. Sections Status of case & Court
1. South tola Mau 399/2010 S.T.No.130/2010 302, 307, 120-B & 34 I.P.C., 25/27 Arms Act & 7 CLA Arguments MPMLA Court Allahabad
2. South tola Mau 891/2010 S.t.No.6200002/2012 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act Framing of Charges MPMLA Court Allahabad
3. Mohammdabad Ghazipur 1182/2009 S.T.No.10/2010 307, 506 & 120B I.P.C.
Evidence MPMLA Court Allahabad
4. Mohammdabad Ghazipur 1051/2007 S.T. No. 6200090/2012 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act Evidence MPMLA Court Allahabad
5. Mohammdabad Ghazipur 263/1990 S.T.No.22/2005 420,467, 468, 120-B I.P.C., 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act Framing of Charges MPMLA Court Allahabad
6. Bhelupur Varanasi 377/1997 S.T.No. 3541/2011 506 I.P.C.
Framing of Charges MPMLA Court Allahabad
7. Chetganj Varanasi 229/1991 S.T.No.265/2007 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C.
Evidence MPMLA Court Allahabad
8. Karanda Ghazipur 482/2010 S.T.No.557/2012 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act Evidence MPMLA Court Allahabad
9. Kotwali Ghazipur 192/1996, S.T.
No.620007/2012 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act Evidence MPMLA Court Allahabad
10. Tarwa Azamgarh 20/2014 S.T.No.6200195/2018 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 506 I.p.C. and 7 CLA Framing of Charges MPMLA Court Allahabad
11. Hazratganj Lucknow 236/2020 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 Police Investigation C.J.M. Court , Lucknow (presently petitioner)
12. South tola mau 04/2020 419, 420, 467, 368, 471, 120B I.P.C. and 30 Arms Act Police Investigation
13. Mataur Rupnagar Punjab State 05/2019 386, 506 I.P.C.
Police Investigation CJM Mohali
14. Jagdishpura Agra 60/1999 S.T. No. 167/2019 420, 419, 109, 120B I.P.C.
Framing Charges MPMLA Court Agra
15. Alambagh Lucknow 66/2000 S.T.No.167/2019 147, 336, 353, 506 I.P.C.
Framing of Charges MPMLA Court Lucknow
16. Tarwan Azamgarh 160/2020 3(1) Gangster Act Police Investigation
14. Thus, the involvement of the petitioner for conspiring in commission of the offences in question cannot be ruled out, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
15. In support of his argument, learned Advocate General has placed reliance of paragraph nos. 15 & 16 of the judgement of the Apex Court reported in (1974) 4 SCC 522 in the case of Jehan Singh Vs. Delhi Administration, which is quoted here-in-below:
"15. The question, therefore, to be considered is, whether in the instant case, the allegations made in the First Information Report, did not, if assumed to be correct, constitute the offence of theft or its abetment against the appellant.
16. A plain reading of the First Information Report would show that the answer to this question must be in the negative. ......................
..............................
May be, that further evidence to be collected by the police in the course of investigation including the hire-purchase agreement, partnership deed and the receipt etc. could confirm or falsify the allegations made in the First information Report. But, the High Court, at this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in R. P. Kapur's case (supra), could not, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, appraise that evidence or enquire as to whether it was reliable or not."
16. He has further placed reliance upon para paragraph no.89 of the judgement of the Apex court reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, which is quoted here-in-below:
"89. In Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration, the application filed by the accused under Section 561-A of the old Code for quashing the investigation was dismissed as being premature and incompetent on the finding that prima facie, the allegations in the FIR, if assumed to be correct, constitute a cognizable offence."
17. He has further placed reliance of Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani : (2017) 2 SCC 779 wherein the Apex Court has disapproved an order restraining the Investigating Agencies arresting the accused where prayer of quashing the First Information Report has been refused.
18. Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently rebutted the arguments of learned Advocate General and the aforesaid Case Laws relied upon by him and has drawn the attention of this Court towards the interim order dated 21.10.2020 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of the co-accused persons who are sons of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.16143 (MB) of 202, wherein the argument of learned Advocate General regarding preliminary objection has been rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.
19. After having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned F.I.R. and material brought on record, we are of the opinion that the allegations which have been levelled against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R. for forging and fabricating the revenue records of the property in dispute of Khasra No.93 and further that the record of 1371 Fasli (correspondents to 1961 AD), 1372 Fasli (correspondents to 1962 AD) and 1374 Fasli (correspondents to 1964 AD), got disappeared so as to show that the name of the persons illegally entered in the revenue records, could not be known.
20. The allegation in the impugned F.I.R. are further to the effect that in spite being knowing the fact that the property in question is an evacuee property and ownership is vested in the Government, the petitioner and his two sons using their influence, got the map passed of the evacuee property and illegally possess the said land, value of which was in Crores and the relevant revenue record is found missing from the record. The fact that the petitioner was born in the year 1963 and when he was minor the alleged forgery was committed in the revenue records and he has been confined in jail since 2005, he cannot be held liable for commission of the offence in question is of no consequence as the matter is still under investigation and the petitioner being a political and influential person, his involvement for the commission of offences in question and disappearance of the revenue records for the 1371 Fasli (correspondents to 1961 AD), 1372 Fasli (correspondents to 1962 AD) and 1374 Fasli (correspondents to 1964 AD), and deep rooted conspiracy in forging and fabricating the documents cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it cannot be said that the impugned F.I.R. does not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioner and the investigation in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R has to be concluded and brought to its logical end.
21. The Apex Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC117, has considered the provisions of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. and held that the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating agency over which the Courts cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation.
22. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others (supra) has observed that at the stage of the registration of the case, it is not necessary for the Court to embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the first information report are reliable or not and thereupon to render a finding whether any of the allegations is proved. These are the matters which can be examined only by the concerned court after the entire materials are placed before it on a thorough investigation. The Court is not called upon to examine the truth or otherwise of each of the instances of the alleged corruption indicated in complaint in snipped form and thereafter string them together and express any opinion either way, since any such opinion may affect the case of either party or cripple the course of investigation.
23. In view of the above, the prayer for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. is hereby refused.
24. The writ petition lacks merits. It is accordingly, dismissed.