Suka Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others

Heard Sri Vijay Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Girijesh Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent and perused the record.

¶11

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has requested that he may be permitted to delete the petitioner no.1 from the array of petitioners and liberty may be given to her to file anticipatory bail application before the competent Court of law.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, he is permitted to delete the petitioner no. 1 from the array of petitioner during the course of the day.

¶13

In view of the above, in the present writ petition, the sole petitioner is petitioner no. 2-Manisha.

¶14

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the impugned FIR being FIR No. 164/2025, dated 04.08.2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 123, 85 BNS and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Umribegumganj, District Gonda.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the unmarried lady and one FIR has been lodged by the father of her sister in law leveling general allegations against the entire family including her, whereas she has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Even if the allegation of the FIR are taken on its face value, the allegation has been leveled against the brother of the petitioner-Manisha and her mother Suka Yadav.

¶16

CRLP No. 8011 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has shown the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 BNSS and the statement of the Doctor, who treated the victim. As per the statement of the victim, no allegation of any kind whatsoever has been leveled against the petitioner Manisha.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that this is the normal tendency in such type of cases to implicate the entire family, even if, there is no allegation or material against those person and this tendency has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 wherein after considering various judgments of Supreme Court viz., Rajesh Sharma and others vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 10 SCC 472, Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 10 SCC 741 , it was observed as follows:-

¶20

"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

¶21

The matter requires consideration.

¶22

Issue notice to the respondent no. 3.

¶23

Steps be taken within a week. Office to proceed accordingly.

¶24

Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.

¶25

List this case in the week commencing 01.12.2025.

¶26

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned F.I.R.

¶27

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigation Officer on 25.09.2025 at 11:00 a.m. to cooperate in the investigation and get her

¶28

CRLP No. 8011 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

statement recorded and shall further appear to cooperate in the investigation as and when required till completion of the investigation or till filing of the police report, failing which, the interim protection granted in this order may be withdrawn on an appropriate application being filed by the prosecution or by the complainant.

¶31

September 19, 2025 Arun

¶32

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suka Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suka Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Om Prakash Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Priyanka Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Shree Mahant Dharmendra Das Chela of Mahant Parmeshwar Das vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Head Constable Pno NO.-062220721 Mahtab Alam vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Others

Mohd. Atif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Mayank Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others