Dismissed¶23

Smt. Madhuri Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko and Others

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2025CRLP/2807/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2807 of 2024; Smt. Madhuri Devi v. State of U.P.; FIR quashing writ petition; FIR dated 05.04.2024; Case Crime No. 0105 of 2024; Sections 504, 506, 366 IPC; Police Station Raniganj; District Pratapgarh; Arya Samaj marriage 06.04.2024; petitioner age 21 years; interim no-arrest protection dated 22.04.2024; Section 164 CrPC statement before Magistrate; office report 17.05.2025 no steps taken; dismissal for non-pursuit / non-prosecution; Rajnish Kumar and Zafeer Ahmad JJ.; decided November 4, 2025.

What did the court decide?

None appeared on behalf of the petitioners to press the writ petition, nor was any request for adjournment or pass over made, whereas the learned A.G.A. for the State was present. ¶11

Smt. Madhuri Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the F.I.R. dated 05.04.2024 (Case Crime No. 0105 of 2024) registered at Police Station-Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh for offences under Sections 504, 506 and 366 I.P.C. should be quashed at the instance of the writ petitioners, in light of their claim that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are majors who married of their own free will on 06.04.2024.

¶14

Court's answer

None appeared on behalf of the petitioners to press the writ petition, nor was any request for adjournment or pass over made, whereas the learned A.G.A. for the State was present.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

With no steps taken per the office report dated 17.05.2025 and no appearance by the petitioners, the Court concluded that the petitioners were not interested in pursuing the matter.

¶22

Key takeaways

The writ petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. was dismissed accordingly; the merits of the quashing claim were not adjudicated.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Rajnish Kumar & Zafeer Ahmad, JJ. — Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2807 of 2024, Smt. Madhuri Devi And Others v. State of U.P. And Others, decided November 4, 2025 — Dismissed for non-pursuit. The writ petition sought quashing of F.I.R. dated 05.04.2024, Case Crime No. 0105 of 2024, under Sections 504, 506 and 366 I.P.C. registered at Police Station-Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh. By its order of 22.04.2024 the Court, acting on counsel's representation that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 (both major) had married by their own free will on 06.04.2024 at Arya Samaj, Krishn Nagar, Prayagraj (marriage certificate annexed as Annexure No. 2; petitioner no. 1's age stated as 21 years in the F.I.R.), issued notice to opposite party no. 4, required a counter affidavit within four weeks, restrained arrest of the petitioners till the next date of listing absent sufficient and credible evidence, and directed recording of petitioner no. 1's statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. An office report dated 17.05.2025 disclosed that no steps had been taken; on the day fixed, no one appeared for the petitioners while the learned A.G.A. was present. Holding the petitioners 'not interested in pursuing the matter', the Court dismissed the petition accordingly; the merits of the quashing claim were left undecided.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2807 of 2024

¶3

Smt. Madhuri Devi And Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shravan Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 10

¶9

HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

¶10

1. Case called out.

¶11

None appeared on behalf of the petitioners to press this petition nor any request for adjournment or pass over has been made whereas learned A.G.A for the State is present.

¶12

This Court had passed the following order on 22.04.2024:-

¶13

"Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶14

By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of F.I.R. dated 05.04.2024 bearing Case Crime No.0105 of 2024 for the offence under Sections-504,506,366 I.P.C. registered at Police Station-Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh.

¶15

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are major and have married with each other by their own free will on 06.04.2024 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals in Arya Samaj, Krishn Nagar, Prayagraj. The copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Krishn Nagar has been annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. In the F.I.R. the age of petitioner no.1 is mentioned as 21 years. In view of the above, he says that no offence under Section 366 I.P.C. is made out. Considering the aforesaid, let notice be issued to opposite party no.4.

¶16

Let counter affidavit be filed in the matter within four weeks. List this case after four weeks.

¶17

In view of the above, till the next date of listing, it is provided that petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case crime number unless and until there is sufficient and credible evidence available against them indicating the commission of offence as alleged

¶18

CRLP No. 2807 of 2024

¶19

¶20

in the F.I.R. and/or they are found to have been minors on the date of their marriage. However, petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer as and when they are called to get their statements recorded. Investigating officer shall also take steps for recording of statement of petitioner no.1 before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, investigation shall be taken to its logical conclusion".

¶21

As per office report dated 17.05.2025, no steps have been taken.

¶22

In view of the above, it appears that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the matter.

¶23

Dismissed accordingly.

¶24

(Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶25

November 4, 2025

¶26

Shahnaz

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Madhuri Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Madhuri Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mayaram and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Kushma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Ashish Kumar @ Dr. Ashish Kumar Dixit Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Chief Secy./Home Secy. or Deputy Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Shivani Pal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others