Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131802-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10238 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sunil Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Affidavit of compliance filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and the learned AGA for State- respondents. 3. This writ petition was filed for quashing of the FIR dated 23.2.2025 which has given rise to Case Crime No.217 of 2025, under Section 87 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. at Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria. 4. Allegation in the FIR was made by the sister of one Anupma Yadav that her sister had been induced by the petitioner to run away with him. It had also been stated in the FIR that Sunil Kumar and the victim-Anupma Yadav were also to get married in the month of April, 2025. It has been stated that thereafter the accused Sunil Yadav had taken the sister of the first informant to Nepal in a Scorpio vehicle Car No. BR-05 PB-2782. It has been further stated in the FIR that immediately after the victim had left with accused Sunil Yadav, a phone call was received by the brother of first informant- Surya Kumar Yadav that instead of taking the victim to Nepal, she was taken to Bihar and thereafter it had been stated in the FIR that the telephone of the victim had been switched off. 5. It has been further stated that after some days, the accused had received phone of the first informant and had only stated that the victim was not living with her and the first informant had suspected that either she had been killed or had been sold away. After the writ petition was filed, this Court on 27.5.2025 had granted relief to the petitioner on his saying that he was innocent. Thereafter, the petitioner had also alleged that the Investigating Officer was expecting bribe from the petitioner and, therefore, the Superintendent of Police had also been directed to look into the matter of bribery. However, the victim was still not traced out and, therefore, on 21.7.2025, the matter was posted for hearing on 28.7.2025 with a clear direction that report with regard to the tracing out of the victim be submitted by that date. 6. On 28.7.2025 again the victim was not recovered and, therefore, the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh was asked to look into the matter. 7. When the case was taken up ultimately on 4.8.2025, it was informed orally to the Court that the victim's dead body had been recovered and had also been identified by her mother. 8. Today, in Court an affidavit has been filed by the Investigating Officer, Sri Sanjay Kumar Reddi, Circle Officer- City District Deoria bringing on record that the victim had now died. 9. The allegations made in the FIR and thereafter the fact that the victim now has died leaves no doubt in the minds that a cognizable case is made out and, therefore, no interference is required in the writ petition. Matter requires a complete investigation. 10. We have perused the the First Information Report, which prima facie discloses commissioning of cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash F.I.R. otherwise also cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315. 11. We are of the view that no interference is warranted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 12. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner be permitted to move a bail/ anticipatory bail application. This Court opines that no direction to that effect is required. If the petitioner moves any bail / anticipatory bail as is permissible under law, it shall be considered in accordance with law. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Mukesh Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad