Smt.Jyoti Devi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16943 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt.Jyoti Devi And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhirendra Kumar Verma,Srawan Kumar Swarnkar Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶1Heard Sri Ansar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.

¶2The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 27.9.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 673 of 2023 under Sections 363, 120B IPC, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶3Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and no o>ence is made out against the petitioners. It is next submitted that with general allegations, entire family has been falsely implicated and petitioners no. 3 to 5 are only releatives and petitioner no. 1 is the victim and the main allegation is against the petitioner no. 2, therefore, clearly at least petitioners no. 3 to 5 have been falsely implicated.

¶4Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable o>ence. It is next submitted that from perusal of the Arst information report it is clear that petitioner no. 1 has an illicit relationship with petitiner no. 2 and no indulgence can be granted in such a matter by this court and there are speciAc allegations against other petitioners as well. It is next submitted that the petitioners are trying to seek stamp of approval from this Court on illicit relationship, which cannot be permitted.

¶5We And substance in the arguments of learned AGA. Perusal of the impugned Arst information report prima facie also reveals commission of cognizable o>ence.

¶6Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned Arst information report.

¶7Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.11.2023 Abhishek High Court of Judicature at Allahabad