Dismissed¶18

Tulsi Pathak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026CRLP/5108/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

quashing of FIR; writ petition dismissed; sections 61(2), 87 BNS; section 180 BNSS; statement of prosecutrix; Case Crime No. 0066 of 2026; FIR dated 21.02.2026; Police Station Collector Bukganj; District Bareilly; Tulsi Pathak; Vahid @ Bhura; Ramu Pathak; State of U.P.; interim order vacated; Allahabad High Court; Rajeev Misra J.; Lakshmi Kant Shukla J.; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition 5108 of 2026

What did the court decide?

No good ground has emerged so as to quash the FIR; the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. ¶17

Tulsi Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5108 of 2026

¶3

Tulsi Pathak And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Girish Kumar Mishra, Hari Om Shukla : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 47

¶7

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Hari Om Shukla, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned AGA representing State-respondent 1, 2 and 3.

¶9

Perused the record.

¶10

Petitioner Tulsi Pathak and two others have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 21.02.2026 lodged by first informant/respondent 4, Sri Ramu Pathak and registered as Case Crime No. 0066 of 2026, under section 61(2), 87 BNS, Police Station Collector Bukganj, District Bareilly.

¶11

On the matter being taken up the learned AGA submits that petitioner 2 Vahid @ Bhura has been arrested whereas petitioner 1 Tulsi Pathak has been recovered. It is then contended by the learned AGA that during pendency of present writ petition the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 180 BNSS wherein the prosecutrix has fully supported the FIR.

¶12

As per the said statement the modesty of the prosecutrix was dislodged deliberately and forcibly and no consent was given by the prosecutrix to develop physical relation. On the above premise the learned AGA submits that individual innocence of petitioners 2 and 3 cannot be undertaken by this Court. As such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioners could

¶14

CRLP No. 5108 of 2026

¶15

¶16

not overcome the same.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned AGA representing State-respondents 1, 2, 3, upon perusal of record and considering the objections raised by the learned AGA in opposition to present writ petition as noted herein above, we are of the view that no good ground has emerged so as to quash the FIR. As a result the present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

It is accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶20

(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

¶21

March 18, 2026

¶22

Arti

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tulsi Pathak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsi Pathak and 2 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Atul Kumar Agnihotri vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Priyanshu Alias Golu vs the State of Up and 2 Others

Rakesh Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others