Disposed¶22

Mahesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2025CRLP/26018/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition 26018 of 2025; Mahesh v. State of U.P.; quashing of FIR; Case Crime No. 142 of 2025; sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 109 BNS; section 3/4 D.P. Act; Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hathras; interim protection from arrest; no-arrest direction till 17.12.2025; notice to respondent no. 3 through S.H.O.; Allahabad High Court; Chandra Dhari Singh J.; Lakshmi Kant Shukla J.; decision dated November 14, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim no-arrest protection for the petitioners till the next date of listing (17.12.2025), subject to cooperation in investigation; notice ordered to respondent no. 3 through the concerned S.H.O.; matter listed fresh for 17.12.2025. No final decision on quashing of the FIR. ¶22

Mahesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26018 of 2025

¶3

Mahesh And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mahendra Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 48

¶10

HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

¶11

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 26.10.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 142 of 2025, under sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 109 BNS and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hathras and to direct the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned FIR.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent, they have not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The present FIR is nothing but a malicious proceeding which was initiated by the respondent no. 3 only for the harassment of the petitioners.

¶13

Heard Sri Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶14

Taking into consideration the averments made by counsel for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that matter requires consideration.

¶15

Issue notice to respondent no. 3 through S.H.O. concerned returnable at an early date.

¶16

Steps be taken within a week.

¶17

CRLP No. 26018 of 2025

¶18

¶19

Per contra Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the instant petition and prayed for two week's time to seek the instructions in the matter.

¶20

Let him take instructions, as prayed.

¶21

Put up this case as fresh on 17.12.2025.

¶22

Till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be arrested in pursuance of the FIR dated 26.10.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 142 of 2025, under sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 109 BNS and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hathras subject to cooperation in the investigation.

¶23

(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) November 14, 2025 RPD

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Roshan Yadav vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Siddhant Pandey @ Mayank vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Pal vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Azim and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shubham Jaiswal vs State of Up and 3 Others

Rajesh Yadav and 4 Others vs State of Up and 4 Others