Allahabad High Court
PRAMOD SRIVASTAVA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR, though possibly defective in wording, discloses commission of an offence and cannot be quashed; the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the FIR dated 18.08.2026 registered under Section 85 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, arguing that the FIR did not disclose any cause of action and merely reflected a grievance about a pending application. The court examined the FIR and noted that it incorporated the complainant’s allegation of forced marriage, dowry demand for a four-wheeler, and seizure of jewellery, which constitute offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that even if the FIR contained defective wording, it nonetheless disclosed a cognizable offence and therefore could not be quashed. The court further observed that any dispute over the correctness of the complaint must be resolved by the investigating officer, the magistrate, or the trial court, not by a writ court under Article 226. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action.
- Whether a grievance about a pending application constitutes an offence under criminal law.
- Whether a High Court can intervene under Article 226 to set aside an FIR.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- FIR
- quash
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Article 226
- criminal procedure
- petition dismissed
- investigation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21594 of 2026
Pramod Srivastava And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : M.P. Srivastava, Manoj Kumar
Kushwahah
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Kandarp Srivastava
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
CRLP No. 21594 of 2026
2
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.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
September 23, 2026
Vipasha
Digitally signed by :-
VIPASHA MUKHERJEE
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…