Dismissed¶13

Vishnu Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2025CRLP/4075/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused; Article 226 writ petition; BNS 2023 Sections 85, 115(2), 74, 352, 351(2); D.P. Act Sections 3/4; Case Crime No.84 of 2025, P.S. Firozabad North, Firozabad; FIR dated 13.02.2025; prima facie cognizable offence disclosed; correctness of FIR allegations deferred to investigation/trial; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; Neeharika Infrastructure (2021) SCC Online SC 315; Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi Cr.Appeal 843-844/2024; mediation referral unsuccessful; petitioners left free to seek other legal remedies; Allahabad High Court Division Bench; order dated 16.5.2025.

What did the court decide?

Perusal of the FIR shows that a prima facie allegation of commissioning of a cognizable offence is disclosed. ¶10

Vishnu Yadav and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of the FIR dated 13.02.2025 registered as Case Crime No.84 of 2025 (Sections 85, 115(2), 74, 352, 351(2) BNS 2023; Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Firozabad North) should be granted.

¶7

Court's answer

Perusal of the FIR shows that a prima facie allegation of commissioning of a cognizable offence is disclosed.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Correctness or otherwise of the FIR allegations need not be examined at this stage; all such issues fall to be determined at the stage of investigation/trial.

¶6

Key takeaways

Since the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, the prayer to quash it is declined, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335), Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ((2021) SCC Online SC 315), and Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi (Criminal Appeal Nos.843 and 844 of 2024).ratio¶11
The dismissal leaves it open to the petitioners to avail whatever remedy is permissible under law and in accordance with law.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Division Bench (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Anil Kumar-X, JJ.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:81576-DB): Dismissed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition under Article 226 filed by Vishnu Yadav and 6 others seeking quashing of an FIR dated 13.02.2025 registered as Case Crime No.84 of 2025 at P.S. Firozabad North, District-Firozabad, under Sections 85, 115(2), 74, 352, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The matter had earlier been referred to mediation by a coordinate Bench on 04.03.2025, but the parties were unwilling (AHCMCC report dated 09.05.2025). Holding that the FIR prima facie disclosed commissioning of a cognizable offence, and that the correctness of its allegations fell to be determined at investigation/trial, the Court declined the prayer in view of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335), Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ((2021) SCC Online SC 315) and Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi (Criminal Appeal Nos.843 and 844 of 2024), leaving the petitioners free to pursue remedies permissible under law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81576-DB

¶2

Court No. - 42

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4075 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Vishnu Yadav And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The petitioners, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 13.02.2025 registered as Case Crime No.84 of 2025 under Section 85, 115(2), 74, 352, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Firozabad North, District-Firozabad.

¶8

The matter was taken up on 04.03.2025 and a coordinate Bench of this Court had proceeded to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre.

¶9

The Registrar (Mediation)/Incharge, AHCMCC has submitted a report on 09.05.2025 with caption "The parties not will for the Mediation."

¶10

We have the occasion to peruse the record. From a perusal of the First Information Report, we find that prima facie allegation with regard to commissioning of cognizable offence is disclosed.

¶11

Correctness or otherwise of the F.I.R. allegation need not be examined by us, at this stage, inasmuch as all these issues can be determined at the stage of investigation/trial. Since the First Information Report, prima facie, discloses commissioning of cognizable offence, the prayer made to quash the First Information Report is, therefore, declined in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315, as also in latest judgment in Criminal Appeal No.843 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition

¶12

(Crl.) No.10913 of 2023 (Directorate of Enforcement vs. Niraj Tyagi and others) connected with Criminal Appeal No.844 of 2024.

¶13

Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to avail the remedy as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

¶14

(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 16.5.2025 A. Pandey

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishnu Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Yadav and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakam Singh Rana vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nitesh @ Nitnesh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Burhan Ahmad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nitesh @ Nitnesh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others