Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 190840 (ALL)

SMT. ARATI PATEL v. STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

CRLP/23167/2025 · 2025-10-12

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23167 of 2025 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. representing respondents 1 to 3. 2. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner Smt. Arti Patel who is the first informant has approached this Court by means of present writ petition with the following prayer:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the respondent no. 2 and 3 to ensure the fair investigation in pursuance of the first information report dated 13.08.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 160 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 120-B, 313, 323 and 307 IPC, P.S.- Jansa, District- Varanasi. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to call the progress report about the private respondent in the said case crime number." 4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by contending that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409, remedy lies to the petitioner to approach the judicial magistrate for redressal of her grievance as such present writ petition is misconceived and therefore liable to be dismissed. 5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Yadav, Shanta Prasad Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt. Arati Patel .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) overcome the same. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1 to 3 and upon perusal of record, we find that preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. is clearly borne out from the record. Moreover, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for petitioner with reference to the record at this stage. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. October 13, 2025 Sharad/- CRLP No. 23167 of 2025 2 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad