Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38833-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5820 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anshu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Punit Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to respondent no.4 is dispensed with. 3. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 08.01.2025 lodged as Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0009/2025, Under Sections-498A/304B/201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Harpalpur, District- Hardoi, contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition ; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Party No.2 & 3 not to give effect and proceed further in pursuance to the First Information Report dated 08.01.2025 lodged as Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0009/2025, Under Sections-498A/304B/201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Harpalpur, District- Hardoi, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition ; (iii) issue an ad interim Mandamus to the effect that the Petitioner be not arrested in pursuance of the First Information Report dated 08.01.2025 lodged as Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0009/2025, Under Sections- 498A/304B/201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Harpalpur, District- Hardoi, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition." 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 4 has registered a false FIR and petitioner who had married the daughter of the respondent no.4 has been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that the petitioner works as Daily Wager at Gurugram, Haryana and the daughter of the respondent no. 4 used to stay with him. On 30.06.2024 the wife of the petitioner left the petitioner's home without telling anyone and did not return. After returning home from work, the petitioner enquired about his wife but was unable to locate her. He reported the incident of missing of his wife to the local police station on 13.07.2024. The petitioner eventually got registered FIR bearing No.407 of 2024 under section 346 IPC on 13.08.2024, at Police Station Khedki Daula, District Gurugram, Haryana. Now, the respondent no. 4 on the same facts as stated hereinabove has lodged a complaint against the petitioner under section 173 (4) BNSS before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi on 11.09.2024. 5. It has been submitted that the complaint case has been rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi on 19.09.2024 finding no merit. Now, the impugned FIR for the same alleged offence could not have been lodged in the police station. 6. We have gone through the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi has mentioned a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Smt. Priyanka Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and others in Criminal Appeal No.781 of 2012 reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 wherein it has been observed that all applications under Section 173 (4) of BNSS have to be considered on their own merit and till such time, the Magistrate is convinced regarding a prima facie case, no notice should be issued, no order should be passed for registering FIR in pursuance thereof. It is on the basis of such observation that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi has rejected the complaint /application moved by respondent no.4. However, the respondent no.4 has not been precluded from lodging FIR for the alleged continued disappearance of wife of the petitioner. 7. We have put a specific query to the petitioner as to whereabouts of his wife which the petitioner could not disclose. This court finds that the allegations as mentioned in the FIR relate to demand for dowry, torturing and harassing his wife eventually leading to her death. The contents of the FIR do make out a case, prima facie., of a cognizable offence. It is not disputed by the petitioner that his wife used to live with him in Gurugram and she disappeared from his house. The petitioner being her husband is presumed to know where his wife had gone. We do not find any good ground to show interference. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Pks Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench