Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code, Police Station
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code, Police Station
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Iqbal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Ors.

    Court No. - 9 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 487 of 2019

    Petitioner :- Iqbal

    Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Ors.

    Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Singh

    Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

    Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

    1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report No. 0394 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi.

    2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, Ms. Farhat Jamal Siddiqui. We have gone through the contents of the impugned First Information Report.

    3. Gist of the allegation appears to be that by way of forgery and manipulation of revenue record, an order has been procured for transferring Gram Sabha land in the name of the beneficiaries, including the petitioner.

    4. We have gone through the contents of Annexure-3 (page 29) wherein it has been mentioned that by virtue of order dated 13th September, 2017, the land mentioned in the column is to be transferred by way of correction and recorded in the name of Abdul Hasan, Abdul Salam, and Iqbal (petitioner).

    5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards recital in the impugned First Information Report wherein order dated 18th December, 2018 has been mentioned as the order on the basis of which the offence was committed. It has therefore been argued that the revenue record is at variance with the allegations in the impugned First Information Report.

    1

    6. Shri Ravi Singh, Advocate has asserted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner, at no point of time gave any application for entry of his name in the revenue record in context of the land mentioned in the impugned First Information Report. It has further been stated at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner that no land of Gram Sabha has ever been mutated in favour of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence.

    7. Learned counsel for the State has no instructions in the matter.

    8. We have taken into account the fact that the impugned First Information Report has been registered on the application of Registrar Kanoongo, Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi. We hereby direct respondent no. 4 to file his affidavit as to on the basis of which document, forged or otherwise, the impugned offence has been committed. The related revenue record and any application filed by the petitioner be also filed.

    9. List on 13.02.2019.

    10. State counsel to ensure compliance. The petitioner be not taken in custody till the next date of listing. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation.

    Order Date :- 10.1.2019

    VKS

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Iqbal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Ors.
    (Jan 10, 2019)