HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7498 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for State-respondents and Sri Harish Pandey, Advocate, who has filed his Vakalatnama along with counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.6. The Vakalatnama along with counter affidavit filed by Sri Harish Pandey, Advocate is taken on record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed following relief : "I. To issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 & 5 to register first information report against opposite party no.4 & 5 in light of judgment& order dated 12.11.2013 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Versus State of U.P., AIR 2014 SC 187 : (2014) 2 SCC 1." 3. Learned A.G.A. has produced copy of instruction received from Sri Ranjeet Singh, Sub-Inspector, police station Kotwali Shahar, district Hardoi, which is taken on record. As per aforesaid instruction, for the allegation in question the petitioner had filed an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate, Hardoi, which has been rejected on 14.10.2024. The recital to this effect has been given in paragraph 3 of the aforesaid instruction. Learned A.G.A. further stated that the aforesaid fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner in the present petition. 4. Sri Harish Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure Nos.10 and 15 (page 49 and 48) of the counter affidavit, which are the orders passed by this Court. The orders, which have been annexed as Annexure Nos.10 and 15 to the counter affidavit, have been passed in the case of the petitioner relating to the said matter in question and this fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjeev Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sanjeev Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner has not disclosed the relevant facts in the petition therefore, the writ petition is dismissed being misconceived. It is always open to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy before the appropriate court of law. September 3, 2025 Rks. CRLP No. 7498 of 2025 2 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench