Dr. Pooja Chaudhary And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Reserved
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1193 of 2026
Dr. Pooja Chaudhary and another
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners : Paritosh Joshi, Sr. Advocate, Vivek
Chaturvedi
Counsel for the Respondents : Dharmendra Pratap Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
Delivered by Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.
The petitioners impugn the First Information Report dated 16.12.2025
1.
(for short, 'the impugned FIR'), giving rise to Crime No. 0323 of 2025,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'
for short), Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar.
Respondent no.3 to the writ petition is the first informant of the case.
2.
The third respondent lodged the impugned FIR with a case that his sister
of full-blood, Smt. Uma Rathi, entered into an agreement to sell with Smt.
Pooja Chaudhary wife of Sunil Chaudhary and Sunil Chaudhary, the
petitioners here, with the latter agreeing to sell their plot bearing Khasra
no. 1252, admeasuring 784.11 square yards, situate at Circular Road,
Muzaffar Nagar in Uma Rathi's favour. The aforesaid transaction was
entered into on 17.11.2011 and a sum of Rs. 80 lacs was paid in cash by
Uma Rathi to the petitioners. The petitioners, after receiving the entire
consideration, issued a receipt in Uma Rathi's favour. The receipt was
given in the presence of witnesses Sunil Sharma son of B.R. Sharma and
Vinay Kumar Singh son of Rajveer Singh, the latter being the first
informant/ respondent no.3. The impugned FIR says that according to the
terms of the agreement, the property was settled to be sold at the rate of
Rs.21,000/- per square yard. The petitioners of their own had said that
they would receive the balance of sale consideration later, a term that was
acceptable to both parties on account of the good relations and trust.

CRLP No. 1193 of 2026
2
It is the third respondent's case that the petitioners later on turned
3.
dishonest, betraying the trust between parties with the intent to cheat. The
petitioners had given possession to Uma Rathi, who was the third
respondent's sister, after the aforesaid transaction. The third respondent's
sister passed away on 16.05.2021. Before her demise, she authorized the
third respondent to look after all legal matters as her legal representative.
The third respondent asserts that he is duly authorized by the deceased
vendee to look after her estate. The third respondent also says that his
brother-in-law has given a written consent to him to act on his behalf. It is
said that earlier his sister was in possession of the property in question
and now he is in possession. The petitioners, entering into a conspiracy
amongst themselves, in order to cause wrongful gain to themselves and
wrongful loss to the third respondent, ignoring the receipt of Rs.80 lacs in
part performance, mala fide and out of ill-will, executed a sale deed of the
plot in dispute on 31.10.2012 in favour of Udit Narain son of Udaiveer
Singh, a resident of Mohalla New Mandi, Town and Police Station
Jhabreda, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand. At the same time, the second
petitioner's father, in conspiracy with the petitioners and with a common
intention, executed a sale deed on 31.10.2012 itself in favour of Udit
Narain relating to the same plot of land. This sale deed was without
authority. The transfer is castigated as fraudulent and a serious crime.
4. The FIR then goes on to detail the particulars of registration of both the
documents in the office of the Sub-Registrar. It is then said by the third
respondent that the transfer in favour of Udit Narain was done
fraudulently with an intent to defeat the third respondent's rights. It is
asserted that the act of the petitioners amounts to criminal breach of trust
and cheating, besides forgery of a valuable security and the making of a
false document with the intent to cheat, all of which are serious
cognizable offences. The FIR goes on to say that upon coming to know of
the aforesaid developments, the third respondent went to the Police and
then to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar, sending him
a written information by registered post, but all to no avail. The
petitioners are said to be influential persons, whereas the third respondent
is a law abiding citizen. The third respondent claims that the matter
requires to be investigated by the Police after registering it in regard to
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The

CRLP No. 1193 of 2026
3
impugned FIR encloses with it a most crucial document, which is an order
dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court in Matters under Article 227 No.
13610 of 2025, a particular that we noticed from the papers filed along
with the writ petition. Also enclosed with the impugned FIR is a copy of
the application moved under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure Code before the Magistrate and the information sent to the
Senior S.P., Muzaffar Nagar.
5. Parties have exchanged affidavits.
Heard Mr. Paritosh Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
6.
Sarvashva Thakur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.
3 and Mr. Deepakh Kapoor, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing on behalf of the State.
7. At the first blush, we were minded to think that the dispute is purely
civil in nature and one about earnest paid by the third respondent's
predecessor for purchase of the plot in dispute, where a sale deed was not
executed in the terms agreed, and, instead sale deeds, oddly two in
number, relating to the same plot of land, were executed in favour of a
third party. Normally, in a case like the present one, there could be
various reasons for the transaction not fructifying. Also, it does not appear
to be a case where a registered agreement to sell was executed by the
petitioners in favour of the third respondent's predecessor, but on a closer
look at the entirety of circumstances, it does appear that the petitioners,
after accepting a sum of Rs. 80 lacs from the third respondent's sister,
proceeded to execute sale deeds in favour of a third party, without settling
the earnest that they had received from the third respondent's sister. Of
course, there is no issue about part performance because there is no
registered agreement to sell so as to create any interest attached to
ownership of land and delivery of possession in part performance of the
registered agreement creating such interest. The issue appears to be
limited to a dishonest intention which might have developed at a later
stage in the petitioners' mind to cheat the third respondent or his
predecessor of the money taken as earnest for the intended sale. Of
course, speaking for ourselves, we would not have much doubt in mind
that there is no angle of forgery involved since no false document has
apparently been prepared.
The twin difficulties, which this case poses before us, is not what we
8.

CRLP No. 1193 of 2026
4
think on our own understanding if a case for quashing on the established
parameters is made out. Our difficulty stems from the fact that when the
third respondent went to the learned Magistrate with an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to the Police to register a case
on the allegations which we have now before us, the Magistrate directed
the application to be treated as a complaint vide order dated 12.07.2023.
Later on, the learned Magistrate, after holding an inquiry, dismissed the
complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 06.05.2024. The
third respondent went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge,
who dismissed it vide an order dated 16.07.2025. Both these orders were
impugned before this Court by the third respondent by means of a petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution, being Matters under Article 227
No. 13610 of 2025. This petition, which came up before a learned Single
Judge of this Court on 21.11.2025, was allowed, setting aside the orders
made by the learned Sessions Judge and the Magistrate together with a
direction to the Station House Officer concerned to register an FIR on the
basis of the third respondent's complaint and undertake investigation. The
material part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Matters
under Article 227 No. 13610 of 2025, on 21.11.2025, reads as follows:
“ 6. In light of the above factual matrix, this Court
is of the considered view that the findings
recorded by the learned Magistrate as well as the
revisional court are ex facie erroneous. Both
courts failed to examine whether the allegations
prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable
offences. At the stage of registration of an FIR,
the Court is only required to ascertain whether the
complaint discloses a cognizable offence; it cannot
undertake a detailed scrutiny of the validity of
documents or adjudicate upon the title to the
property. The reliance placed on the provisions of
the Transfer of Property Act and issues relating to
civil title was wholly misdirected.
7. Given the nature of allegations, which prima
facie indicate elements of cheating, forgery, and
dishonest misappropriation, this Court is satisfied
that the petitioner's complaint disclosed the
commission of cognizable offences requiring
investigation. Consequently, the impugned order
dated 16.07.2025, as well as the order dated
06.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate and the earlier order dated 12.07.2023,
are hereby set aside.

CRLP No. 1193 of 2026
5
8. The Station House Officer concerned is directed
to register the FIR on the basis of the
petitioner's complaint and undertake the
investigation uninfluenced by any observations made
by the courts below, and strictly in accordance
with law.
9. With the above observations and directions, the
present petition stands .”
allowed
A perusal of the orders of the learned Single Judge made in Matters
9.
under Article 227 No. 13610 of 2025 shows that there is a direction inter
partes to the Police to register an FIR and investigate. Therefore, if we
were to apply our mind independently and think that there is a case purely
of a civil nature involved and proceed to quash the FIR, what we would
be doing in effect is nullifying, and, if we may dare say, setting aside the
judgment of the learned Single Judge, which inter partes has become
final. We have been informed during hearing that the judgment and order
dated 21.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge has not been put to
challenge before the Supreme Court. Decidedly, it has attained finality
and the impugned FIR has been registered by the Police, which they are
now investigating pursuant to the command of the learned Single Judge.
There is, therefore, no scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned
FIR on any ground or premise whatsoever and quash it.
In the result, this petition fails and is .
10. dismissed
11. The interim order dated 24.04.2026 is hereby vacated.
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
July 23 , 2026
Anoop
Digitally signed by :-
ANOOP KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad