Allahabad High Court
SMT JAHARI DEVI@ HEM LATA AND 3 OTHERversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, AND 3 OTHER
- Decided
Holding
The FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence and therefore cannot be quashed; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR dated 15 June 2026, registered under Sections 80(2) and 85 of the BNS Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging false implication. The State argued that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence. The Court examined the FIR and, relying on the Supreme Court precedents State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra and Leelavati Devi v. Uttar Pradesh, held that the FIR prima facie established a cognizable offence and therefore could not be interfered with. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the petitioners to apply for anticipatory bail or regular bail as permissible. The decision reaffirms the limited scope of judicial interference with FIRs absent clear legal infirmities.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 15‑06‑2026 can be quashed on the ground of false implication of the petitioners
- Whether the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence warranting non‑interference by the court
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 80(2), 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- FIR quash
- cognizable offence
- anticipatory bail
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- criminal procedure
- writ petition
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20547 of 2026
Smt Jahari Devi@ Hem Lata And 3 Other
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh, And 3 Other
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Verma, Krishna Kumar
Mishra, Vikash Chandra Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information
Report dated 15.6.2026 registered as Case Crime No.0187 of 2026, under Sections
80(2) and 85 of BNS and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Kaundhiyara, District - Prayagraj, and a direction to the respondent authorities not to
arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned first information report.
2. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have
been falsely implicated. No offence is made out against the petitioners.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that a cognizable offence has been made out
and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned first information report.
4. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of
cognizable offence.
5. Therefore, 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 first information report.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to apply
before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in
accordance with law.
September 8, 2026
safi
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MAHBOOB SAFI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…