Shiva Katiyar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 25.10.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 18.12.2024 passed in S.T. No. 440 of 2025, (State Vs. Shiva Katiyar), arising out of F.I.R. No. 462 of 2024, under Sections 328, 376(2)(N), 504, 323, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant of the present case is a major lady, who is habitual in trapping the innocent persons. It is further submitted that the applicant was working on the post of Store Keeper in Kalyan Singh Super Speciality Cancer Hospital, Ahimamau, where the complainant was deployed as a Woman Security Guard. It is also submitted that respondent no. 2-complainant started conversation with the applicant and later on, moved an application before the police that on the pretext of marriage, she was physically abused by the applicant. On the said application, the local police officials insisted the applicant to enter into marriage with the complainant, on which, their marriage was solemnized in a Temple on 30.08.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that thereafter, as per her strategy, she lodged the F.I.R. No. 462 of 2024 (supra) against

¶14

NA528 No. 607 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

the applicant.

¶17

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that during the course of investigation, it came into the knowledge of the applicant that the respondent no. 2-complainant earlier trapped one Puneet Mishra s/o Awadhesh Mishra, r/o Patel Nagar, Madhoganj, District Hardoi, who executed a Power of Attorney dated 15.02.2023 in favour of respondent no. 2. On the basis of said Power of Attorney, she obtained ownership of a house situated at Gata Nos. 214, 212, 213 having area 845 sq. ft., Village Malak, Pargana Bijnaur, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow, which is registered as Bahi No. 4, Jild No. 119, Pages 261 to 270 at Serial No. 16, mentioning herself as wife of Puneet Mishra, as also received Rs.8 lac from him. Drawing the attention of the Court towards Annexure 14 to the application, learned counsel for the applicant submits that said Puneet Mishra sent a message to the applicant mentioning that the complainant is a fraudster.

¶18

It is submitted that another case of the complainant came into the notice of the applicant, in which, one Rajveer Singh s/o of Virendra Pratap Singh was the victim of the complainant, with whom also, she solemnized marriage and thereafter, only with the intention to realize money from him, filed a complaint case in the court of Judicial Magistrate II, Court No. 19, Raebareli, which was registered as Case No. 1677 of 2016 (Smt. Preeti Tiwari w/o Rajveer Singh d/o Late Vanshbahadur Tiwari r/o Village Tedhai, P.S. Shivratanganj, Tehsil Tiloi, District Amethi Vs. Rajveer Singh & 3 Ors.) under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 313, 354, 377 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. The averments made in the said case are that Rajveer Singh made physical relations with her against her wishes on the pretext of marriage, but when he denied for solemnizing marriage, she lodged F.I.R. No. 767 of 2014, under Sections 376, 506, 323 I.P.C., P.S. Shivratanganj, District Amethi. It is also averred therein that on the insistence of the police, Rajveer Singh solemnized marriage with her on 05.12.2014 in a Gayatri Temple, but thereafter, she was being victimized by her husband and her in-laws.

¶19

NA528 No. 607 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that in the said case, statement of one Maya Tiwari was recorded under Sections 202 Cr.P.C., who is also mentioned as a witness in the present case in the list of witnesses in the charge sheet at Page 25. It is lastly submitted that all these facts were not investigated by the Investigating Officer. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶22

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that charge sheet has already been filed against the applicant and all these facts can be raised by the applicant before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

¶23

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, as mentioned above, it is evident that the victim trapped several persons only with the intention to realize money.

¶24

In view of above, the matter requires consideration.

¶25

Issue notice to respondent no. 2.

¶26

List this case on 30.03.2026.

¶27

On the next date, applicant as well as complainant shall appear before this Court.

¶28

S.H.O., P.S. Sushant Golf City, Lucknow shall ensure the presence of respondent no. 2 before this Court on the next date.

¶29

Until further orders of this Court, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.

¶30

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶31

February 26, 2026

¶32

VKS

¶33

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

Shiva Katiyar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiva Katiyar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Urmila Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Tushar Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Anoop @ Vinod vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Mahesh Dutt Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pushpendra Tiwari @ Prashant Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Nagendra Bahadur Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others