Suman Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Suman Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court by an application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the charge sheet and the cognizance/summoning order under Section 210 BNSS; interim order, if any, discharged.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 12.03.2026 (Case Crime No. 60 of 2026) and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to conclude a fair, impartial and expeditious investigation warrants interference by this Court, in view of the charge sheet having already been forwarded under Section 193(3) BNSS.

Court's answer

The prayer made in the writ petition is refused.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy indicated in the proceedings, i.e., an application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the charge sheet and the cognizance taking order/summoning order to be passed by the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 210 BNSS.

Key takeaways

Any interim order operating in the matter shall stand discharged.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra and Padam Narain Mishra, JJ.) in Suman Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9737 of 2026 (decided May 7, 2026): The petitioner had challenged the FIR dated 12.03.2026 in Case Crime No. 60 of 2026, under Sections 333, 76, 115(2), 304(2), 352, 351 of B.N.S., Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur, praying for a writ of mandamus to conclude a fair, impartial and expeditious investigation. The learned A.G.A. informed the Court that investigation under Chapter XIII BNSS was complete and the charge sheet/police report had been forwarded under Section 193(3) BNSS, leaving the petitioner free to challenge the charge sheet and any cognizance/summoning order under Section 210 BNSS by an application under Section 528 BNSS. Confronted with this, counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition, to which the A.G.A. had no objection. The Court refused the prayer of the writ petition, dismissed it as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid, and directed that any interim order shall stand discharged. No precedent was cited or considered; the matter was resolved on concession without adjudication on merits.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9737 of 2026

Suman Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Satyam Mishra, Vikas Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 49

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1, 2 & 3.

2. Perused the record

Petitioner-Suman Devi has approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 12.03.2026 lodged by first informant for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to conclude fair and impartial investigation of Case Crime No. 60 of 2026, under Sections 333, 76, 115(2), 304(2), 352, 351 of B.N.S., Police StationVindhyachal, District- Mirzapur, expeditiously.

On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 submits that after completion of statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XIII BNSS, Investigating Officer has forwarded the charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS. On the above premise the learned AGA submits that remedy lies to petitioner to approach this Court by means of an application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the charge sheet as well as the cognizance taking order/summoning order to be passed by the jurisdictional magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 210 BNSS. It is thus urged by learned AGA that no interference is warranted by this Court in the present writ petition.

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of the objections raised by the learned AGA in opposition to present writ petition, instant writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn with

CRLP No. 9737 of 2026

2

liberty aforesaid.

Learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner.

In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ petition is hereby refused.

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned AGA for Staterespondents, upon perusal of record and considering the rival submissions urged by the learned counsel for parties as noted hereinabove, the present writ petition shall stand dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

Interim order, if any, shall stand discharged.

May 7, 2026 A.N. Mishra

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad