HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8720 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents no.1 to 3, and Ms. Prasansha Singh, learned counsel, who files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.4. 2. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the FIR bearing Case Crime No.0177/2025, under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Indira Nagar, District Lucknow. 3. From a perusal of the averments made in the FIR it emerges that the petitioner and respondent no.4 were in a relationship since the year 2019. The petitioner had also established physical relations with respondent no.4. Upon the respondent no.4 in the year 2025 asking the petitioner to marry her, he refused and hence the FIR. 4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had every intention since the beginning to marry respondent no.4 but for the fact that when the intention of marriage was expressed between the families it turned out that the respondent no.4 is a Manglik as per the horoscope and consequently the petitioner has resiled from the marriage. 5. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and another - (2019) 9 SCC 608 to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the allegations in the FIR do Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Amit Kumar Singh Mahendra Pratap Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) not on their face indicate that the promise by the appellant was false, or that the complainant engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise and that when the appellant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith or with the intention to deceive her consequently the Courts can interfere in the matter. 6. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court may not come to the rescue of the petitioner considering the fact that in paragraph 8 of the petition the petitioner has indicated that the respondent no.4 is relative of the petitioner and that they knew each other since childhood. 7. It is inconceivable that for the purpose of establishment of relationship the respondent no.4 being 'Manglik' did not come as an impediment and it is only when the issue of marriage came up that the petitioner has resiled from the same on the said ground. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion no case for interference is made out more particularly when a cognizable offence is made out from a perusal of the FIR. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. October 14, 2025 A. Katiyar CRLP No. 8720 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench