Amardip and 4 Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Amardip and 4 Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order only: notice to be issued to the opposite parties, returnable at an early date, with steps to be taken within seven working days; the concerned SHO to inform the private opposite parties of the pendency of the case; the learned AGA to communicate the order to the SHO forthwith and place affidavit proof of the information given at the next listing; and, till the next date of listing, the proceedings in issue to remain stayed so far as they relate to the applicants. Final adjudication of the application deferred.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Ayodhya in Complaint No.1635/2024 (under Section-173(4) of B.N.S.S.) should be set aside so far as it relates to the applicants.

Court's answer

On taking note of the FIR allegations against the applicants (the in-law relatives of opposite party no.2) and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the six cited cases, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

INTERIM ORDER - APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 9609 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Saurabh Lavania, J.; decided November 14, 2025). Amardip and 4 others - the brother-in-law ('Devar'), mother-in-law ('Saas'), two sisters-in-law ('Nand') and brother-in-law ('Nandoi') of opposite party no.2 - seek setting aside of the summoning order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Ayodhya in Complaint No.1635/2024, CNR No.UPFZ040335492024 ('Pratibha Vs Amarnath Others'), under Section-173(4) of B.N.S.S., Police Station Tarun, District-Ayodhya, so far as it relates to them. Taking note of the FIR allegations against the applicants and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra (2012) 10 SCC 741, Kahkashan Kausar (2022) 6 SCC 599, Achin Gupta (2024 SCC OnLine SC 759), Payal Sharma (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473), Safiya Bano alias Shakira (2024 SCC OnLine SC 222) and Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy (2024 SCC OnLine SC 127), the Court held the matter to require consideration, issued notice returnable at an early date (steps within seven working days), directed the concerned SHO to inform the private opposite parties of the pendency, required the learned AGA to communicate the order forthwith and produce affidavit proof thereof at the next listing, and stayed the proceedings, so far as relating to the applicants, till the next date of listing.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9609 of 2025

Amardip And 4 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 13

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Heard.

The present application has been filed for the following main relief:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to setting aside the Summoning order dated 17.12.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd Ayodhya in Complaint No.1635/2024, CNR No.UPFZ040335492024, Pratibha Vs Amarnath Others, Under Section-173(4) of B.N.S.S., Police Station Tarun, District-Ayodhya, so far as relates to petitioners, contained as ANNEXURE NO. 01 to this petition."

Taking note of the allegations leveled in the FIR against the applicants, who are brother-in-law/applicant no.1('Devar'), mother-in-law ('Saas')/applicant no.2, sister-inlaw('Nand')/applicant no.3, sister-in-law ('Nand') /applicant no.4, brother-inlaw/applicant no.5 ('Nandoi') of opposite party no.2 as also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 , Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759 , Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473, Safiya Bano Alias Shakira and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 222 and Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

Accordingly, issue notice, returnable at an early date.

Steps in this regard be taken within seven working days.

List/put up this case after service of notice alongwith report in this regard.

A482 No. 9609 of 2025

2

Let private opposite parties be also informed by the concerned SHO, regarding the pendency of the case.

Learned AGA is directed to communicate this order to the SHO concerned forthwith and place the proof regarding the information given by the S.H.O. concerned to the opposite parties by way of an affidavit when the case is listed next.

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings, in issue, shall remain stayed so far as the same relates to the applicants.

November 14, 2025 Jyoti/-

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench