HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19644 of 2025 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 31.7.2025 in Case Crime No. 98 of 2025, under Sections 80, 85, 61(2) of BNS and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station - Rajepur, District - Fatehgarh. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the petitioner no. 1 on 18.11.2019. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged against the petitioners with false allegation of torturing the deceased for demand of dowry and several other allegations against the husband and in -laws. They are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Therefore, the FIR may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that from the plain reading of the FIR, cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. 5. After plain reading of the FIR it is clear that cognizable offence is made out against petitioner nos. 1 to 4. So far as petitioner no. 1 (Husband) is concerned, there are serious allegations against him and against petitioner nos. 2 and 3 who are Jeth, there are allegations against them of harassing the deceased sexually and there are also serious allegations against petitioners nos. 1 to 4 of giving medicines to the deceased which were harmful for her mental health. It is also alleged in the FIR against these petitioners that they have threatened the deceased for life if the dowry demand is not fulfilled and they tortured her and kept her hungry. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions, observations and serious allegations as well as law settled in the case of State of Haryana Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankit Kumar Pal, Shad Azam Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Pavan @ Pawan Kumar Pandey And 5 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, that the Court may only invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction for quashing of FIR in rarest of rare cases. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the instant case. We are of the view that the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 have failed to make out any case for quashing of the FIR as prayed in the instant writ petition. 7. The instant writ petition is devoid of merit qua petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and is accordingly dismissed. 8. After perusing the FIR and other material on record, the allegations made against the petitioner nos. 5 and 6 i.e. Arti (Devrani) and Kamla Devi (mother-in-law) are found to be general in nature. Therefore, petitioner nos. 5 and 6 have succeeded to make out a prima faice case for quashing of FIR in the instant matter. 9. Matter requires consideration. 10. Issue notice to respondent no. 3 returnable at an early date. 11. All the respondents are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. 12. List immediately thereafter. 13. However, till the next date of listing or till submission of police report under Section 193(3) BNSS, whichever is earlier, petitioner nos. 5 and 6 shall not be arrested in pursuance of impugned First Information Report dated 31.7.2025 in Case Crime No. 98 of 2025, under Sections 80, 85, 61(2) of BNS and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station - Rajepur, District - Fatehgarh, provided petitioner nos. 5 and 6 cooperate in the investigation. October 9, 2025 S.K.S. CRLP No. 19644 of 2025 2 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad