Ramesh Kumar Singhal And 7 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Heard Shri Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Tarun Agrawal, along with Shri Imran Syed, Shri Shashank Singh, and Ms. Pallavi, learned counsels for the petitioners, and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

The petition seeks the following reliefs: "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned FIR No.0088 of 2025 dated 26.04.2025 lodged by the respondent no.4 under Sections 256, 318(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS 2023, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Hamirpur. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 and 3 not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR No.0088 of 2025 dated 26.04.2025 lodged by the respondent no.4 under Sections 256, 318(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS 2023, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Hamirpur. (III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no.2 and 3 from proceeding with the investigation arising out of impugned FIR No.0088 of 2025 dated 26.04.2025 lodged by the respondent no.4 under Sections 256, 318(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS 2023, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Hamirpur. "

The primary contention raised by the petitioners is that the impugned FIR is a blatant misuse of the criminal justice machinery, intended to pressurize the petitioners in what is fundamentally a civil dispute pending for several decades. The dispute pertains to ownership and possession of certain land including the premises known as "Kothi Narayan Rao". The impugned FIR alleges fabrication of certain documents by the predecessors-in-interest of the current petitioners, in collusion with government officials.

The land in question was subject to adjudication before various courts, starting from the Munsif Court at Hamirpur where two civil suits, namely O.S. No.21 of 1972 (Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal vs. State of U.P. and others) and O.S. No.88 of 1972 (Jagdish Saran Singhal vs. State of U.P.), were decreed in favour of the petitioners' predecessors. These decrees were upheld in appeal and even affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8388 of 1983 and 8389 of 1983.

Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Demarcation) passed an order on 25.11.1980 declaring the land as agricultural, which was challenged by the petitioners' predecessors in Writ Petition No.4129 of 1981. The writ was allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.04.1988, quashing the SDO's order. That order too stood affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Despite these binding civil adjudications, the State initiated a fresh proceeding in O.S. No.44 of 1993 seeking a declaration of ownership and cancellation of the decrees dated 19.12.1977. The plaint was ultimately rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by a detailed order dated 25.07.2002 in Civil Revision Nos. 51 of 2002 and Civil Revision No.52 of 2002. The State's challenge thereto also failed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further drawn our attention to a previous FIR dated 23.04.1994 (Case Crime No.82 of 1994) lodged on similar allegations, which was made subject matter of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8041 of 2003. Interim protection was granted therein. He also relies on an order dated 14.09.2007 passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.20599 of 2007, wherein proceedings arising out of police report in Case No.1758 of 2006 were stayed.

In support of his submission, learned Senior Advocate has relied upon several judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in Criminal Appeal no.1285/2021 (Mitesh Kumar Jha vs. The State of Karnataka) and order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal no.1393/2011 (Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) and submits that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. He has also placed reliance on the order dated 16.12.2024 in Rikhab Birani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh in SLP (Crl.) No.008592 of 2024, wherein, the Supreme Court has expressed concerns over the 'wrong and rampant practice' of converting civil disputes into criminal cases in several states.

In this backdrop, he submits that the present FIR is based on a dispute that has been the subject of civil litigation for over five decades, culminating in final decisions rendered by the Apex Court. The core issues involve adjudicated civil rights concerning title and possession, which have attained finality. The criminal proceedings initiated now, on substantially the same facts, appear to be actuated by mala fide intent.

Learned A.G.A. submitted that instructions in the matter are still awaited, and hence sought a short adjournment to file the same.

Considering the above and in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned for further hearing.

Accordingly, the matter be listed as fresh on 21.05.2025 along with the record of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9423 of 2025 (Raj Kishor Lekhpal vs. State of U.P. and others).

In the meantime, it is directed that respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners pursuant to impugned FIR, subject to their cooperation in the ongoing investigation. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 12.5.2025 A. Pandey