HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10749 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 3. 2. No notice is being issued to the respondent No.4 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have raised a challenge to the FIR dated 24.09.2024 vide Case Crime No.0272 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 323, 304- B IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Asivan, District Unnao. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are the in-laws of the deceased Smt. Shanti, who died on 13.09.2023. 5. The complainant has lodged the aforesaid FIR under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC contending that the petitioners have killed Smt. Shanti for want of dowry. 6. Placing reliance on the certificate of the doctor dated nil, copy of which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners states that Smt. Shanti was suffering from liver jaundice and had been referred to the hospital on 13.9.2023, but died even before adequate treatment could be provided. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that a final report had been submitted after the FIR had been lodged, but upon the protest application being filed, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 05.05.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition, has set-aside the final report and directed for further investigation. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once from the perusal of the certificate as issued by the concerned doctor, it emerges that the deceased had died on account of liver jaundice, as such, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to proceed against the petitioners on the basis of the said FIR. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Shankar Mishra, Shivanshi Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shyam Ji @ Suraj Kumar And 5 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 8. Considering the aforesaid and the fact that the final report had already been submitted and that further investigation is still going on in terms of the order issued by the competent court, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities not to take any coercive action in pursuance to the impugned FIR till some cogent or credible evidence is found against the petitioners. 9. Needless to mention that the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation. 10. It is also provided that in case the petitioners do not cooperate in the said investigation it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the complainant to file appropriate application for vacation of this order. . (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) November 19, 2025 Reena/- CRLP No. 10749 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench