Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Annexure-1 to the writ petition is a letter dated 31.7.2009 written by A.D.M. Sonebhadra to Tehsildar, Ghorawal mentioning therein that there is some manipulation and fake entries have been made in the revenue records through which Gaon Sabha property has been entered in the names of private persons and D.M. has directed on 29.7.2009 for lodging of FIR. Thereafter, it was directed that in view of order dated 27.6.2008 passed by C.O., report of C.O. dated 25.4.2009 and order of D.M. dated 29.7.2009, copies of which were being annexed along with the said letter, FIR should be lodged against the persons who got their names entered in the revenue records on the basis of fraudulent entries. The first prayer in this writ petition is that the order of D.M. dated 29.7.2009 mentioned in Annexure-1 be quashed.

The second and third prayers are quoted below :

“(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to lodge any first information report or take action consequent to order of Consolidation Officer, since it is not final.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents not to take any proceeding, violating liberty of petitioners without giving them an opportunity of being heard.”

3. Copy of order of C.O. dated 27.6.2008 is Annexure- 3 to the writ petition. In Para-12 of the writ petition, it has been stated that against the said order, appeal has been filed before S.O.C. in which interim stay order has been passed on 25.9.2008.

4. In view of Section 41(d) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, an injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in criminal matter. Accordingly, no injunction can be issued restraining any person or authority from lodging the FIR. If permanent injunction cannot be issued, then temporary injunction can also not be issued vide Proviso (a) added by U.P. to Order XXXIX Rule 2, C.P.C., which is quoted below :

“Provided that no such injunction shall be granted where no perpetual injunction could be granted in view of the provisions of Section 38 and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.”

5. In this regard, reference may be made to an authority of this Court reported in Gauri Shanker v. District Board of Farrukhabad, AIR 1947 All 81. Interpreting clauses (a) & (e) of Section 56 of old Specific Relief Act, it was held in Para-4 of the said authority as follows :

“The question then arises whether it is open to the Civil Court to prevent a lawfully constituted body from pursuing a prosecution. It will be for the criminal Courts to say whether the prosecution could be sustained or not. I do not think a Civil Court can go into that question. In this view of the matter the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed.”

6. It may be noticed that under the old Specific Relief Act corresponding provision, i.e. Section 56 (e), was as follows :

“An injunction cannot be granted to stay proceedings in any criminal matter.”

7. Under Specific Relief Act, 1963, the scope has been widened and it has been provided that injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person even from instituting any proceedings in criminal matter.

8. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

9. However, if FIR is lodged or has been lodged, then the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue such remedy against that FIR, which may be available to him under law.

————