Allahabad High Court
SUNITA @ SONI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- TARUN SAXENAMUNIR
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the High Court cannot entertain factual disputes or direct investigation under Article 226.
Summary
The petitioners Sunita alias Soni and others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that they were assaulted by the accused and that the investigation was inadequate. The FIR described an assault on the informant's mother with an iron rod, resulting in a grievous injury (loss of a tooth) as documented in the injury report. The petitioners contended that there was a cross‑version of facts, claiming they too were assaulted, and sought a direction for further investigation. The Court held that such factual disputes and the merits of a defence are matters for the trial court and cannot be decided by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the order was directed to be communicated to the concerned police officials.
Issues considered
- What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 in directing investigation or adjudicating factual disputes in a criminal case?
Subjects
- Assault
- Grievous hurt
- Article 226
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Writ petition
- High Court jurisdiction
- Dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10073 of 2026
Sunita alias Soni and others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Tahir Kurashi, Mohd
Shamim Khan, Shadab Ansari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shadab Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioners at
length in support of this petition and Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned
Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State.
2. There is allegation in the First Information Report regarding assault
upon informant's mother, after gaining entry into her home. The assault
was one made by the three nominated accused, employing an iron rod,
which caused the informant's mother to lose her tooth. A perusal of the
injury report mentioned in the Case Diary shows that Kamla Devi wife of
Pooran Chand, upon being examined, was found to have lost tooth of the
left upper first molar, with clotted and fresh bleeding from sockets,
associated with contusion 2 cm. x 20 cm. overlying the lip. Injury no. 1
was opined to be grievous in nature and advised to be x-rayed.
3. Looking to the nature of the injury, the submission of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that there was a cross version, as the petitioners
were also assaulted, makes it a case which requires investigation in the
first instance. If the petitioners are charge-sheeted, they can plead this
CRLP No. 10073 of 2026
2
defence of theirs at the trial, but, it is a much disputed defence, which we
cannot examine in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
4. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed.
5. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to
the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad and the Station House Officer,
Firozabad North, Firozabad, both through the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Firozabad.
(Tarun Saxena,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
May 5, 2026
I. Batabyal/S.K. Srivastava
Digitally signed by :-
ISHAN BATABYAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…