HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11011 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard. 2. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the FIR No.0266 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(3), 115(2), 109(1), 110 and 333 B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Jethwara, District Pratapgarh. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that aforesaid FIR has been lodged by the respondent No.4 as a counter blast to the FIR that had been lodged by the petitioners' side. Copy of the said FIR that had been lodged by the petitioners' side is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. Contention is that none of the offences as indicated in the FIR is made out. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are that (a) the petitioners are all ladies of which two are unmarried; (b) there is a delay of one and a half months; and (c) no specific role has been alleged against the petitioners. 6. No other ground has been urged. 7. Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions states that he is having the injury report of the victims per which injuries have been suffered on the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ram Kailash And 9 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homee Lko And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) side of the complainant. 8. The aforesaid grounds as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners are found to be patently fallacious & misconceived. 9. The reason is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement in the case of Muskan vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others; 2025 INSC 1287 has held as under: "We are of the view that the High Court has erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing an FIR, it must be shown that there exists no prime facie case against the accused persons. In the present case, from the conjoint reading of the complaints and the FIR, it can be seen that prime facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry are made out, despite that the High Court quashed the FIR against the private respondents primarily on the ground that the earlier two complaints that were filed by the appellant did not mention the specific instances that happened on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 and the same were later on mentioned in the FIR only as an afterthought and was a counterblast to the legal notice sent by respondent no.1/husband to the appellant as she was not coming back to her matrimonial home. This approach adopted by the High Court, in our considered opinion, amounts to conducting a mini trial." 10. Likewise the Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty- (2022) 16 SCC 703 has held that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR. 11. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and others - (2023) 18 SCC 399 has held that as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. 12. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and CRLP No. 11011 of 2025 2 others- (2021) 19 SCC 401 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that while examining of FIR quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. 13. From a perusal of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Muskan (supra) wherein the aforesaid judgments of Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) and Pratima Mohanty (supra) have already been referred to, it clearly emerges that the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial while considering the allegations made in the FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally concluded that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry with regard to the credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing of an FIR, it must be shown that there exists no prima facie case against the accused persons. 14. The grounds as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, if are to be considered by this Court, would primarily amount to holding of a mini trial and an inquiry which has specifically been restrained by the Apex Court in the cases of Pratima Mohanty (supra), Aryan Singh (supra), Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) and Muskan (supra) inasmuch as the genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the credibility of the witnesses etc. cannot be seen. From a bare perusal of the FIR, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the instant criminal writ petition is dismissed. November 24, 2025 prateek CRLP No. 11011 of 2025 3 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench