Vikas Sahu and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home (Police Deptt.) Shasan Lko. and Others

Neither the petitioners are present nor their counsel is present, whereas, respondent No.4, Smt. Priyanka Sahu alongwith her counsel is present in terms of the previous order of this Court.

¶13

On the last date also, neither the petitioner No.1 nor his counsel had appeared, therefore, following order was passed on 19.02.2026:-

¶14

"1. 'Power' filed by Sri Gulam Rabbani Khan, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 4 is taken on record.

¶15

2. In deference to the order dated 2.2.2026, respondent no. 4, Smt. Priyanka Sahu, is present in person. She has been identified by her counsel who has filed Vakalatnama today.

¶16

3. Neither the petitioner no. 1 is present in compliance of order dated 2.2.2026 nor anybody is present on his behalf.

¶17

4. Sri Abhyuday Kumar, S.I. and Ms. Sneh Lata, Constable, Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow are present alongwith respondent no. 4.

¶18

5. On the last date, the counsel for the petitioners had argued while assailing the FIR filed vide Case Crime No. 0601 of 2025, under Section 351(3), 352, 115(2), 85 BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Krishna Nagar, Lucknow, that the petitioners want to settle the matrimonial dispute amicably and in case the matter is referred to Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court, it may be settled. To show his bona fide, the petitioner no. 1 had also stated that he will deposit Rs. 30,000/- in the Mediation Center.

¶19

6. Considering the above facts, the following order was passed on

CRLP No. 866 of 2026

2

2.2.2026:

"1. Heard Sri Ali Ahsan Ali holding brief of Sri Durgesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.

¶24

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of matrimonial dispute between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4, an FIR has been lodged by respondent no. 4 against the petitioner and his family members, on the basis of general and ominous allegations. He further submits that on the next date of the alleged incident, respondent no. 4 had travelled with petitioner no. 1 and other family members from Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction to New Jalpaiguri. In proof thereof, he has annexed a copy of railway ticket as Annexure-4.

¶25

3. He further submits that petitioner no. 2 is suffering from cancer. He also submits that the petitioners want to settle the matrimonial dispute amicably for which the matter may be referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

¶26

4. To show his bona fide, the petitioner no. 1 is ready to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in the mediation center of this Court within two weeks from today.

¶27

5. The matter requires consideration.

¶28

6. Issue notice to respondent no. 4.

¶29

7. List on 19.2.2026 on which date the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4 shall appear before the Court in person to show their willingness about mediation in the matter.

¶30

8. Learned AGA shall get the respondent no. 4 informed through SHO concerned about the date fixed to ensure his presence on the said date.

¶31

9. The petitioner no. 1 shall deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, as aforesaid, within two weeks in the account of Mediation and Conciliation Center, Lucknow.

¶32

10. Till the next date of listing, no coersive measures shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance to the impugned FIR."

¶33

7. As per office report, learned counsel for the petitioners has neither taken steps nor the amount of Rs. 30,000/- has been deposited in terms of the order dated 2.2.2026.

¶34

8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that the petitioners do not want to settle the dispute but only to get an interim protection, got the aforesaid order dated 2.2.2026 passed by this Court because the petitioner no. 1 had not appeared before the Mediation Center in the family court also, despite repeated orders, whereas respondent no. 4 was ready to settle the matter before the Mediation Center. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

CRLP No. 866 of 2026

¶36

3

¶37

9. In view of above and since the petitioners nor their counsel are present, it appears that the petitioners are not ready to settle the dispute and only to get interim protection, conceded for mediation. Thereafter neither steps have been taken nor the amount of Rs. 30,000/- has been deposited, whereas since the order was communicated through SHO concerned also, the respondent no. 4 has engaged a counsel and also appeared before this Court.

¶38

10. In view of above facts, the interim order / protection granted by means of order dated 2.2.2026 is hereby vacated.

¶39

11. List on 25.2.2026, showing the name of Sri Gulam Rabbani Khan as counsel for the respondent in the cause list.

¶40

12. In case either the petitioners or his counsel fail to appear on the date fixed, this Court may dismiss the petition with a direction to deposit Rs. 30,000/- which was offered on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 by his counsel to show his bona fide, alongwith the cost of equal amount i.e. Rs. 30,000/-

¶41

13. On the date fixed, petitioner no. 1 as well as respondent no. 4 shall appear in person before this Court

¶42

14. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submits that respondent no. 4 shall appear on the said date as she wants to settle the dispute.

¶43

15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to petitioner no. 1 by learned AGA through the SHO concerned to ensure his presence on the date fixed."

¶44

In view of above, it is apparent that by making a false statement before this Court that the petitioners are ready for mediation in the matter, an interim order was obtained by learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.30,000/- as mentioned in the order dated 19.02.2026 and Rs.30,000/-, which was stated by learned counsel for the petitioners on behalf of the petitioners to deposit before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court to show the bonafide, shall also be deposited by the petitioners. Thus, total amount of Rs.60,000/- shall be deposited by the petitioner No.1 within a period of two weeks with the Senior Registrar of this Court, failing which, the same shall be recovered from the petitioner No.1 forthwith as an arrears of land and revenue.

¶45

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

¶46

February 25, 2026 Saurabh

¶47

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vikas Sahu and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home (Police Deptt.) Shasan Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Sahu and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home (Police Deptt.) Shasan 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

Shivanand Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Mohammad Danish and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma @ Ashish Vishwakarma (Complainant) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Ankit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Smt. Savita Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Saurabh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others