HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21594 of 2026 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. Heard the counsel for the parties. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information Report dated 18.08.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 0134 of 2026, Under Section 85 of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-Kotwali Shahar, District Mirzapur. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the first information report registering Case Crime No. 0134 of 2026 does not disclose any cause of action for registering the first information report and the recitals do not reveal commission of any offence. It has been argued that the grievance of the complainant in the first information report was only that her application dated 07.07.2026 was not being decided by the concerned officer of the Mahila Police Station. It was argued that the said grievance does not constitute an offence under the provisions of criminal law. We do not agree with the argument of the counsel for the petitioners. The recitals in the first information report disclose, as admitted by the counsel for the petitioners, that the complainant had filed a complaint dated 07.07.2026 in which she had complained that she had been forced into marriage by deception and coercion and further after marriage, her in-laws were demanding dowry in the form of a four wheeler. It is also in the complaint dated 07.07.2026 that the jewellery of the complainant had been taken into possession by her in-laws. The contents of the complaint dated 07.07.2026, as disclosed in the first information report registering Case Crime No. 0134 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : M.P. Srivastava, Manoj Kumar Kushwahah Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Kandarp Srivastava Pramod Srivastava And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) of 2026, reveal commission of an offence by the accused. It transpires from the reading of the contents of the first information report registering Case Crime No. 0134 of 2026 that despite disclosing the offence committed against her in her complaint dated 07.07.2026, the concerned police officer of the police station was not registering the FIR and was continuously calling the complainant for counseling, which the complainant was refusing and did not relish. In the circumstances, it was incumbent on the concerned police officer to get the complaint dated 07.07.2026 registered as First Information Report. The First Information Report, as registered, may be defective but still discloses commission of an offence by the accused so far as it narrates the contents of the complaint dated 07.7.2026. The First Information Report is only an information to the police and brings the criminal investigation machinery in operation. The same was done by the contents of the complaint dated 07.7.2026. In the circumstances, the defective wordings in the First Information Report are not sufficient to persuade this Court either to quash the First Information Report or to grant interim protection to the petitioners. The other arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners regarding the correctness of the complaint made by the complainant is to be looked into by the Investigating Officer and subsequently by the jurisdictional Magistrate or the trial court, and it is not for this Court to look into the same in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed. September 23, 2026 Vipasha CRLP No. 21594 of 2026 2 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIPASHA MUKHERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad