Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8241 of 2021 Petitioner :- Neelam Bagga And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Harsh Gopal
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard Dr. S.B. Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and Sri Harsh Gopal, learned counsel for the informant- respondent no.4.
This writ petition has been filed, praying to quash the impugned FIR No. 0041 of 2021, dated 27.03.2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Fazalganj, District Kanpur Nagar.
In the impugned FIR, briefly the allegation is that the petitioner no.1 is an imposter and has executed two registered agreements to sale representing herself to be Amarjeet Kaur, mother of the informant-respondent no.4. Petitioner no.2 is 'Devar' of the petitioner no.1, who is stated to be marginal witness of the aforesaid two agreements to sale in respect of House No. 119/30 (old number) / 119/55 (new number), Mohalla Naseemabad Dharshanpurwa, District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a compromise decree dated 06.04.2019 was passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 1492 of 2018 (Km. Rimpi Chhabra Versus Sardar Gurucharan Singh and others) in respect of house in question and thus, Km. Rimpi Chhabra became the owner of the disputed house. It is further submitted that the aforesaid compromise decree has become final.
Learned counsel for the informant-respondent no.4 submits that a fraud has been committed by the petitioner no.1 representing herself to be Amarjeet Kaur, mother of the informant-respondent no.4 and, accordingly, executed an agreement to sale. Copies of the agreements to sale have not been brought on record by the petitioners, even though the foundation of the impugned FIR are the said agreements to sale.
Learned counsel for the informant-respondent no.4 has stated before us that compromise decree has not become final. He further states that when it came to knowledge that a fraud has been committed, then appropriate proceeding before the court has been initiated.
Perusal of the impugned FIR shows that the allegation of impersonation has been made in the impugned FIR against the petitioners. This is matter of investigation.
The alleged compromise decree cannot be made basis for quashing the impugned FIR when there is clear allegation of impersonation in the impugned FIR.
In view of the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2021 T.S.