State v. Ikbal Husain and Others) pending in the Court of pending in the Court

The opposite party no.2 has lodged an FIR dated 26.06.2021 which was registered as FIR No.0360/2021 under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468. 471 IPC, police station – Nanpara, District Bahraich on the ground that land having gata no.9752, area 1.657 acre situated in village – Nanpara Dehati, Pergana & Tehsil – Nanpara, District – Bahraich is entered in CH 41 as Non Z.A. and the aforesaid gata number is entered in the name of Raod District Board in 1404 fasli but in 1405 fasli, Lekhpal Afroz Alam had got entered 0.060 acre land from the said gata in the name of Smt. Rajkumari w/o Sharda, Iqbal Husain, s/o Riyaz Husain and Shakeel Ahmad Ansari s/o Rafeeq Ahmad, without any order. In 1416 fasli name of Smt. Arunima Srivastava was mutated in khatauni in place of deceased Rajkumari on the basis of Will Deed and on 07.11.2020 Shakeel Ahmad Ansari has sold 9.86 square meter land to Smt. Anjani Gupta and then Lekhpal and other persons manipulated the document. On 19.7.2021 the SDM has passed an order regarding entry of name of 2 A482 No. 9453 of 2025 District Board and removal of name of the petitioner in the revenue record pertaining to Gata 9752. Against the order dated 19.7.2021 the petitioner has filed appeal under section 38 (4) U.P. Revenue Code, bearing appeal no. C2180000000719 which is pending before Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of First Informant Sageer Ahmad and lekhapal Brij Bahadur, Sri Prakash Tripathi, Anup Kumar Khetan and Majair Hussain and submitted charge sheet under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the petitioner. Matter regarding correction of the in revenue record is already sub-judice before the appellate authority and purely of civil nature but the authorities concerned have given criminal colour to a dispute which is purely of civil nature, and the investigating officer has also submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner has purchased the land in question by virtue of sale deed and the same is a registered document with the authority concerned and as such a duly executed and registered document cannot be said a forged document until the competent court declares the same otherwise. The allegation regarding manipulation of document is baseless. In fact, the petitioner is bonafide purchaser of the Non – ZA land in question for consideration. That it is submitted that the false and malicious prosecution has been launched by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner for extraneous reasons after about 27 years of execution of sale deed. That it is submitted that the dispute shown by the prosecution is of purely civil in nature and the civil proceedings having case no. T-2021081505352 has been decided by the court of SDM Nanpara, District – Bahraich vide order dated 19.07.2021 against which appeal is pending before Commissioner Devi Patan mandal Gonda even then the opposite party no.2 is harassing the petitioner giving criminal colour of to the same by way of lodging FIR against the petitioner during the pendency of proceedings under Section 38 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code. In addition, he argued that the case of the present applicant is covered with the ratio of judgment and orders rendered in Criminal Appeal No.295 of 2022, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.7955 of 2021, namely, Syed Yaseer Ibrahim vs. State of U.P. and another, Sachin Jain vs. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another, Criminal Appeal No.510 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3009 of 2022 and Rikhab Birani and another versus State of U.P. reported in 2025 SCC Onlne SC 823 and therefore, no proceedings regarding the currency of criminal prosecution can go on, therefore, submission is that the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed. Learned A.G.A appearing for the State has refuted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the applicant by making interpolation in the revenue records, has shown his name, therefore, he has committed cheating and fraud, thus, he is not entitled for any relief. Considering the aforesaid submissions, it is apparent that the property-in- question was purchased by the father of the applicant by way of a registered sale deed being the guardian, as the applicant was minor at that very point of time and since then, the applicant is in possession over the land in question. He submitted that subsequently, when the Irrigation Department and other local authorities started creating hindrance in the peaceful possession of the 3 A482 No. 9453 of 2025 land, the applicant filed a civil suit bearing Suit No. 379 of 1994 (Iqbal Husan & Ohters vs. State of U.P. & Others), which was decreed ex-party in favour of the present applicant, vide the judgment and order dated 30.11.1998. A copy of the judgment is annexed as Annexure 4 to the petition. On 19.7.2021 the SDM has passed an order regarding entry of name of District Board and removal of name of the petitioner in the revenue record pertaining to Gata 9752. Against the order dated 19.7.2021 the petitioner has filed appeal under section 38 (4) U.P. Revenue Code, bearing appeal no. C2180000000719 which is pending before Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of First Informant Sageer Ahmad and lekhapal Bri Bahadur, Sri Prakash Tripathi, Anup Kumar Khetan and Majair Hussain which are annexed as Annexure 11 to the petition and submitted chare sheet under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the petitioner. Matter regarding correction of the revenue record is already sub-judice before the appellate authority and purely of civil nature but the authorities concerned has given criminal colour to a dispute which is purely of civil nature, and the investigating officer has also submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. This Court finds that once the appeal has been filed by the applicant against the order passed on the application under section 38 of Revenue Code 2006, the instant first information report has been lodged, therefore, it is apparent that the case of the present applicant is a dispute of civil nature and it is covered with the ratio of judgment of Rikhab Birani(Supra), thus, matter requires consideration. Let notice be issued to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 05.01.2026. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2, may file their counter affidavits. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings of Case No. 9666/2022 arising out of Case crime no 360/2021, U/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. Police Station- Nanpara, District-Bahraich, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned. November 11, 2025 (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)

The opposite party no.2 has lodged an FIR dated 26.06.2021 which was registered as FIR No.0360/2021 under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468. 471 IPC, police station – Nanpara, District Bahraich on the ground that land having gata no.9752, area 1.657 acre situated in village – Nanpara Dehati, Pergana & Tehsil – Nanpara, District – Bahraich is entered in CH 41 as Non Z.A. and the aforesaid gata number is entered in the name of Raod District Board in 1404 fasli but in 1405 fasli, Lekhpal Afroz Alam had got entered 0.060 acre land from the said gata in the name of Smt. Rajkumari w/o Sharda, Iqbal Husain, s/o Riyaz Husain and Shakeel Ahmad Ansari s/o Rafeeq Ahmad, without any order. In 1416 fasli name of Smt. Arunima Srivastava was mutated in khatauni in place of deceased Rajkumari on the basis of Will Deed and on 07.11.2020 Shakeel Ahmad Ansari has sold 9.86 square meter land to Smt. Anjani Gupta and then Lekhpal and other persons manipulated the document. On 19.7.2021 the SDM has passed an order regarding entry of name of 2 A482 No. 9453 of 2025 District Board and removal of name of the petitioner in the revenue record pertaining to Gata 9752. Against the order dated 19.7.2021 the petitioner has filed appeal under section 38 (4) U.P. Revenue Code, bearing appeal no. C2180000000719 which is pending before Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of First Informant Sageer Ahmad and lekhapal Brij Bahadur, Sri Prakash Tripathi, Anup Kumar Khetan and Majair Hussain and submitted charge sheet under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the petitioner. Matter regarding correction of the in revenue record is already sub-judice before the appellate authority and purely of civil nature but the authorities concerned have given criminal colour to a dispute which is purely of civil nature, and the investigating officer has also submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner has purchased the land in question by virtue of sale deed and the same is a registered document with the authority concerned and as such a duly executed and registered document cannot be said a forged document until the competent court declares the same otherwise. The allegation regarding manipulation of document is baseless. In fact, the petitioner is bonafide purchaser of the Non – ZA land in question for consideration. That it is submitted that the false and malicious prosecution has been launched by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner for extraneous reasons after about 27 years of execution of sale deed. That it is submitted that the dispute shown by the prosecution is of purely civil in nature and the civil proceedings having case no. T-2021081505352 has been decided by the court of SDM Nanpara, District – Bahraich vide order dated 19.07.2021 against which appeal is pending before Commissioner Devi Patan mandal Gonda even then the opposite party no.2 is harassing the petitioner giving criminal colour of to the same by way of lodging FIR against the petitioner during the pendency of proceedings under Section 38 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code. In addition, he argued that the case of the present applicant is covered with the ratio of judgment and orders rendered in Criminal Appeal No.295 of 2022, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.7955 of 2021, namely, Syed Yaseer Ibrahim vs. State of U.P. and another, Sachin Jain vs. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another, Criminal Appeal No.510 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3009 of 2022 and Rikhab Birani and another versus State of U.P. reported in 2025 SCC Onlne SC 823 and therefore, no proceedings regarding the currency of criminal prosecution can go on, therefore, submission is that the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed. Learned A.G.A appearing for the State has refuted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the applicant by making interpolation in the revenue records, has shown his name, therefore, he has committed cheating and fraud, thus, he is not entitled for any relief. Considering the aforesaid submissions, it is apparent that the property-in- question was purchased by the father of the applicant by way of a registered sale deed being the guardian, as the applicant was minor at that very point of time and since then, the applicant is in possession over the land in question. He submitted that subsequently, when the Irrigation Department and other local authorities started creating hindrance in the peaceful possession of the 3 A482 No. 9453 of 2025 land, the applicant filed a civil suit bearing Suit No. 379 of 1994 (Iqbal Husan & Ohters vs. State of U.P. & Others), which was decreed ex-party in favour of the present applicant, vide the judgment and order dated 30.11.1998. A copy of the judgment is annexed as Annexure 4 to the petition. On 19.7.2021 the SDM has passed an order regarding entry of name of District Board and removal of name of the petitioner in the revenue record pertaining to Gata 9752. Against the order dated 19.7.2021 the petitioner has filed appeal under section 38 (4) U.P. Revenue Code, bearing appeal no. C2180000000719 which is pending before Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of First Informant Sageer Ahmad and lekhapal Bri Bahadur, Sri Prakash Tripathi, Anup Kumar Khetan and Majair Hussain which are annexed as Annexure 11 to the petition and submitted chare sheet under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the petitioner. Matter regarding correction of the revenue record is already sub-judice before the appellate authority and purely of civil nature but the authorities concerned has given criminal colour to a dispute which is purely of civil nature, and the investigating officer has also submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. This Court finds that once the appeal has been filed by the applicant against the order passed on the application under section 38 of Revenue Code 2006, the instant first information report has been lodged, therefore, it is apparent that the case of the present applicant is a dispute of civil nature and it is covered with the ratio of judgment of Rikhab Birani(Supra), thus, matter requires consideration. Let notice be issued to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 05.01.2026. In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2, may file their counter affidavits. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings of Case No. 9666/2022 arising out of Case crime no 360/2021, U/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. Police Station- Nanpara, District-Bahraich, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned. November 11, 2025 (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)