SMT. SANJU DEVI AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
CRLP/19605/2025 · 2025-10-08
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 191172 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 191172 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19605 of 2025 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri Satya Priya Mishra, for respondent No. 4 and perused the record. 2 The instant writ has been filed for quashing of the first information report dated 03.06.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 270 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336, 340(2), 351(3) BNS, Police Station Jhagaha, District Gorakhpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of harassment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioners have not taken any money in cash nor have received any money in their account and whole allegation has been made against co-accused Kuldeep Chaudhary. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire family of the petitioners have been falsely implicated by levelling general allegations.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 have submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners.
6. After plain reading of the FIR, it is clear that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions, observations and serious allegations as well as law settled in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vivekanand Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Satya Priya Mishra Smt. Sanju Devi And Another .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, that the Court may only invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR in rarest of rare case. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the instant case.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. October 9, 2025 RPD CRLP No. 19605 of 2025 2 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad