Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 161620 (ALL)

SHITAL DEVI YADAV AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. U.P. AND OTHERS

CRLP/8228/2025 · 2025-09-11

Rajeev Singh, Rajnish Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8228 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Piyush Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and Shri Jaganniwas Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5. 2. This petition has been filed seeking writ of certiorari quashing the F.I.R. No. 123 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 309(1), 309(2), 309, 61(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., P.S. Kamrauli, District Amethi. A further writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 to 4 not to arrest the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R., has been sought. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of false and concocted story after a legal notice was given by the petitioners and thereafter, a suit for cancellation of lease deed and permanent injunction has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that petitioner no. 1, who is already married with someone else, is wrongly claiming herself to be the wife of Ramraj, who had executed the lease deed in favour of wife of respondent no. 5, namely, Reeta Devi. 5. Learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions, submits that the investigation is going on. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Piyush Pathak, Vaibhav Prakash Jaiswal, Vipul Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Jaganniwas Mishra Shital Devi Yadav And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the F.I.R. and the material, which is on record, the commissioning of offence cannot be ruled out. The plea and the material of the petitioner cannot be examined by this Court at this stage. 7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 11, 2025 VKS CRLP No. 8228 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench