N. L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Narendra Singh and two others for a writ of certiorari and direction for quashing of the FIR dated 12-4-1992 in case crime No. 102 of 1992, under section 467, 468, 420 &, 506 IPC, P.S. Dhata, District Fatehpur. The further relief claimed is a direction to the respondents Police Authorities not to arrest the
(2.) PETITIONERS on the basis of afore-mentioned FIR. The petitioners have annexed the copy of the FIR as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The brief facts as disclosed in the FIR is that opposite- party Smt. Phulpatiya is the widow of one Chandra Pal Singh. He stated in the FIR that she is an old helpless lady. After the death of her husband she had started living with her 'Jeth' (husband's elder brother Vijai Bahadur Singh) and 'Dewars' (Husband's younger brothers Chhotelal Singh, Narendra Singh and Amritlal Singh) jointly as a member of a joint family. Three years before the date of lodging of the FIR there was a family partition and the land which had come in the share of the opposite party Smt. Phulpatiya was given to her and she started living on basis of the yields of her land. It has been categorically stated that on 10-9-90 Narendra Singh S/o. Vijai Bahadur Singh obtained a fictitious sale deed registered in in the name of his minor sons Praphul Kumar and Praveen Kumar by setting up some other woman as imposter in place of Smt. Phulpatiya. After getting the fictitious sale-deed registered stealthily, mutation of the names o( minor sons Praphul Kumar and Praveen Kumar was also done. The complainant-informant, Smt. Phulpatiya stated in the FIR that neither she sold her land nor put any thumb-impression on any such sale-deed. The alleged sale deed is wholly fictitious and forged one. In the sale-deed Kanchan Singh, S/o the 'Maama' (Maternal uncle) resident of 'Mohanpur' P.S. Kakhori : Jagatpal Singh S/o Brijpal resident of Rampurwa, P.S. Dhata are shown to be witnesses in the sale-deed. Rarnesh Singh Chauhan Advocate, Tehsil Khaga is said to have attested the signatures of the witnesses. In the course of enquiry Sri Jagatpal Singh stated before the Tehsildar that Smt- Phulpatiya had not executed any sale-deed, some imposter woman was made to sign and appear before the Registrar at the time of registration of the sale-deed. It is also stated in the FIR that the mutation of the name of the alleged purchasers Praphul Kumar and Praveen Kumar was also cancelled. The complainant Smt. Phulpatiya stated that opposite-party Narendra Singh threatens her and also wants to harvest the crop of sugar-cane from her field by force. Narendra Singh himself wants to harvest the crop standing in the plots and he had been threatening the complainant and creating hurdles in getting the crops harvested from her own field. On basis of these allegations the case has been registered for investigation. The petitioners approached this court for quashing the FIR and other reliefs already mentioned in the fore-going paragraphs.
(3.) THE petitioners annexed the copy of the order dated 19-3-1991 as Annexure 1 to the writ petition showing that the names of the petitioners have already been mutated. THE contesting opposite party has filed a counter affidavit and order dated 4-2-1992 passed by the Tehsildar, Fatehpur showing that the entry of the names of alleged purchasers Of the land in question was ordered to be deleted. THE order dated 19-3-1991 mutating the names of the purchasers was recalled and vacated. This fact that the mutation order obtained by opposite-parties have been recalled is not disputed by the petitioners in their rejoinder affidavit. The petitioners pleaded that opposite party no. 3 filed a Civil Suit no. 176 of 1991 before the Civil Judge, Fatehpur for cancellation of the sale deed dated 10-9-1990. The petitioners also filed a Suit No. 88 of 1992 (Praveen Kumar and others v. Dharamveer Singh and others) in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Khaga, District Fatehpur for a permanent injunction with a specific prayer that the defendant-respondent be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land In dispute. The interim injunction was refused by the Civil Court. In the matter of mutation the name of Praveen Kumar and another has been refused. Revision No. 49 of 1992 was preferred by the petitioners before the Addl. District Jndge (II), Fatehpur and interim order dated 30-4-1992 was passed restraining the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners.;