TUPHAIL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U, P,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Agnivesh holding brief of Sri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Virendra Kumar Pal, learned A.G.A for the State respondents and perused the records.

(2.) The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the first information report dtd. 11/7/2023, registered as Case Crime No. 249 of 2023, under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Bareilly.

(3.) The FIR impugned herein has been lodged in respect of sale deed executed on 24/2/1992. Allegation in the FIR is that one Raj Kumar Malhotra, who was having registered power of attorney dtd. 10/4/1991 in his favour executed by Tuphail Ahmad (petitioner no.1) for selling the plots of the property, which was being developed by the petitioner no.1- Tuphail Ahmad known as Bukhara Enclave, District Bareilly. He had executed a sale deed dtd. 24/2/1992 in respect of plot no.18, area 229 sq.yard, in favour of the informant-Dr. Rajesh Tandon possession whereof was also handed over. Thereafter, again by registered sale deed dtd. 4/2/2004 the petitioner no.1-Tuphail Ahmad alongwith others executed through Raj Kumar Malhotra, his power of attorney holder sold the said plot no.18 to the petitioner no.2-Vijay Prakash and petitioner no.3-Ritesh Agarwal, who in turn sold the said plot no.18 to the petitioner no.4- Rafikan Begam, daughter-in-law of the petitioner no.1-Tuphail Ahmad by registered sale deed dtd. 14/7/2011 wherein, the petitioner no.5/Accused no.6-Tasleem Ahmad (son of Tuphail Ahmad) and petitioner no.6/Accused No.7-Budhpal Singh are the witnesses. It is stated that whereas the informant throughout remained in possession of the said plot no.18. The allegation in the present first information report is that the subsequent sale deeds are nothing but a fraud played upon the informant, as all accused were aware of all the facts right since the beginning, therefore, the offences have been committed.