HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8795 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. 1. Smt. Smriti, Advocate has filed her power on behalf of the respondent No.4, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Uttam Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Smriti, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 3. The present petition has been filed seeking following main relief:- "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing the F.I.R. dated 25.05.2025 (i.e., Annexure No.1 to the writ petition), which is registered as Case Crime No.120/2025, U/Ss 85, 80(2) BNS and 3/4 of D.P. Act, at Police Station Madhoganj, District Hardoi, which has been registered pursuance to the F.I.R. dated 25.05.2025 (i.e., Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) in the offence as alleged by opposite party no.4, as relates to the petitioners." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have wrongly and falsely been implicated in the impugned F.I.R., whereas they are sisters-in-law and brother-in-law, who live separately and were not present on the spot. He further submits that the petitioner No.3 was a surety in a criminal case and on the said date, he was in court, in regard to which, a questionnaire has been placed on record. Thus, submission is that the impugned F.I.R. is not sustainable against the petitioners. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Uttam Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Soni Bano And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.4 vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and they submit that it is a case of dowry death and within seven months of marriage, the deceased had died on account of demand of dowry as well as harassment made by the family members. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 further submits that evidence has been given to the Investigating Officer regarding presence of the petitioners on the date of incident at the place of incident. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record as well as contents of the F.I.R., the commissioning of offence cannot be ruled out and the plea of alibi etc. cannot be considered by this Court at this stage. Thus, no case for interference is made out in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani; (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others; (2021) SCC Online SC 315. 8. In view of above, the present petition is dismissed. October 8, 2025 Saurabh CRLP No. 8795 of 2025 2 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench