Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Savita And Others vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 January, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1833 of 2019 Petitioner :- Savita And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tushar Pandey,Ayank Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record.
Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 6.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 25 of 2019, under Section 420 IPC at P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Allegation in the FIR, which has been got registered through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is that the informant (respondent No. 4) had purchased a piece of land on 16.3.2004 from recorded tenure holder Sharif Ahmad. It is alleged that by a fictitious sale deed co-accused Satya Prakash purchased the same property from Sharif Ahmad and, thereafter, he sold the same to the petitioner no. 1 and 2 through a sale deed, whose attesting witness is petitioner no. 3. It is also alleged that the accused are all in collusion with each other and they have tried to fraudulently stake a claim over the property of the informant.
The petitioners have come to this court by claiming that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 are bonafide purchasers and that there is no allegation that Satya Prakash is fictitious/bogus person and, therefore, petitioner no. 3, who has been marginal witness of the sale deed, would not be responsible.
Whether the petitioners are bonafide purchasers for value or not and whether they are in collusion with other accused person, who has staked a claim on the property, is a matter of investigation. Under the circumstances, the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be accepted. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off the writ petition by providing that the investigation shall continue and shall be brought to its logical conclusion, but subject to their co-operation in the investigation, the petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 RavindraKSingh
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Savita And Others vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 January, 2019
Judges
  • Manoj Misra
Advocates
  • Tushar Pandey Ayank Mishra