Dismissed¶7

Ruby and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2026CRLP/5545/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5545 of 2026; Ruby v. State of U.P.; challenge to FIR dated 04.12.2025; Case Crime No. 0805 of 2025; Sections 137(2), 61(2) B.N.S.; Police Station Kasya, District Kushinagar; first informant Smt. Nesha; State objection re absence of income averment and petitioner-2's insufficient means to maintain petitioner-1; writ petition dismissed; interim order vacated; decision dated April 20, 2026; bench Rajeev Misra, J. and Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.; counsel Adya Prasad Tewari and Prateek Shukla for petitioners, G.A./A.G.A. for State.

What did the court decide?

None to petitioners; writ petition dismissed and interim order, if any, vacated. ¶7

Ruby and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5545 of 2026

Ruby And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adya Prasad Tewari, Prateek Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 49

¶7

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Prateek Shukla, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1, 2 and 3.

¶9

Perused the record

¶10

Petitioners-Ruby And Another have approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 04.12.2025 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Smt. Nesha and registered as Case Crime No. 0805 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station-Kasya, District-Kushinagar.

¶11

At the very outset, the learned counsel representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 submits that in the instant writ petition there is no averment regarding the income of petitioners. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. would thus submit that since petitioner-2 has insufficient source of income to sustain himself, he cannot maintain petitioner-1. It is thus contended by the learned A.G.A. that in view of above, no interference is warranted in present writ petition.

¶12

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioners could not over come the same.

¶13

Having heard, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 and upon perusal of record, we find that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present writ petition are clearly borne out from the record. Furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for petitioners with reference to the record.

¶14

CRLP No. 5545 of 2026

¶15

¶16