AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. of Case crime no.346 of 2018 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471,
323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar (contained as Annexure no.6 to the writ petition). ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent nos.1 and 2 not to arrest the petitioner till the filing of the charge sheet.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is bonafide purchaser of the property in dispute. According to him, on
15.07.2013, Khursida executed registered sale deed of the property in favour of the petitioner on the sale consideration of ` 39,30,000/-. Â
From the perusal of Hibenama dated 21.7.2003, which is an unregistered document, prima facie it appears that there is cutting on the date of notary
who has attested the alleged Hibenama. Smt. Khurshida, relying upon the factum that there is Hibenama in her favour, executed sale deed dated
15.07.2013 in favour of the petitioner. Property in dispute has been allegedly purchased on the sale consideration of ` 39,30,000/- and the entire
amount, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, have been paid in cash.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Without expressing any
opinion on the documents filed by the petitioner, in my opinion, it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.Â
The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. [Interim Relief application CLMA No. 5964 of 2017 also stands dismissed].