JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Sharma and Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui for opposite parties, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Instant application has been filed with prayer to quash the order dated 06.03.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Sitapur in a Criminal Case No. 6395 of 2017, Smt. Zubeda Begum, versus Kazim Mehndi, and further prayed to stay the operation and implementation of impugned order dated 06.03.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Sitapur in a Criminal Case No. 6395 of 2017, Smt. Zubeda Begum, versus Kazim Mehndi.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the factual matrix of the case is that on 15.04.1990, on the basis of an application of the petitioner moved before Nagar Palika Parishad, Mehmudabad, Sitapur, an inquiry was made with respect to the death certificate which was issued to the petitioner regarding the death of Taqi Hussan wherein the date of death of Taqi Hussain was shown 02.04.1993. He further added that it is an admitted fact that daughter of Raja Hussain is admittedly died on 06.04.2007 and the Tehsildar under certain misconception and while misreading the provisions of section 171 and 172 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act has presumed as Taqi Hussain as successor who was not alive on the date of death of Kaniz Raja thereafter, the applicant-petitioner filed a case under section 210 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, against the order of Tehsildar dated 27.01.2015 thereby, agitating the issue that the succession which was open on the date of death of Kaniz Raza i.e. on 07.04.2007, on that point of time Taqi Hussain was not alive. Therefore, the present applicant being sister's son admittedly was alive on the death of Kaniz Hassan and thus, being the nearest heir, learned appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 27.01.2015 and against the same, a revision was filed which was also dismissed on 07.09.2015 by the revisional court and thereafter, on 26.05.2015, a claim of Mutation has also been raised. He added that in between the death certificate which was issued in collusion with the ex-chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, was got cancelled and against the same the present applicant has instituted the writ petition before this Court which is pending consideration. He added that since the present applicant are the nearest heirs of the deceased Kaniz Raja and therefore, there was no occasion to submit any forged or fabricated death certificate in his favour. He further added that in fact it is a dispute which is purely of civil in nature and several set of litigations are pending between the parties and this can only be decided after the issue is finally decided which is pending consideration at different stages.

4. While further adverting the fact that the order dated 06.03.2018 has been passed without considering the facts in its right perspective as the learned trial court has not considered the fact that the present applicant is the nearer heir of the deceased and thus, after the death of Kaniz Raja, he applied for Mutation.

5. He added that the trial court has also ignored the fact that there was no occasion for the present applicant to submit any kind of forged or fabricated death certificate as he by operation of law, is the legal heir of the deceased, Adding his argument, he submits that impugned order dated 06.03.2018 has been passed without thoroughly giving the reasons.

6. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment reported in Devendra and Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2009) 7 SCC page 495 and has referred paragraph 24.

7. Paragraph 24 is quoted herein under:-

There is no dispute with regard to the aforementioned propositions of law. However, it is now well settled that the High Court ordinarily would exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Co