Allahabad High Court
RUBY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as it fails to establish a ground for interference with the FIR.
Summary
The petitioners, Ruby and another, filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 04‑12‑2025 lodged by Smt. Nesha under Sections 137(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. The State, through the Attorney General, argued that the petition lacked any allegation about the petitioners' income and that petitioner‑2 had insufficient means to support petitioner‑1, contending that this rendered the petition untenable. The petitioners were unable to rebut this objection. The Court examined the record and found the Attorney General’s objections to be substantiated and not overcome by the petitioners. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition failed on its merits. The petition was dismissed and any interim relief previously granted was vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under Sections 137(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. can be quashed by a criminal miscellaneous writ petition.
- Whether the petitioner's alleged lack of income is a ground for dismissal of the writ petition.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- criminal writ
- FIR quash
- income of petitioner
- section 137(2) B.N.S.
- section 61(2) B.N.S.
- petition dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5545 of 2026
Ruby And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adya Prasad Tewari, Prateek Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Prateek Shukla, the learned counsel for petitioners and the
learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1, 2 and 3.
2. Perused the record
3. Petitioners-Ruby And Another have approached this Court by means of
present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 04.12.2025
lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Smt. Nesha and registered as Case
Crime No. 0805 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 61(2) of B.N.S., Police
Station-Kasya, District-Kushinagar.
4. At the very outset, the learned counsel representing State-respondents 1, 2
and 3 submits that in the instant writ petition there is no averment regarding
the income of petitioners. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. would
thus submit that since petitioner-2 has insufficient source of income to
sustain himself, he cannot maintain petitioner-1. It is thus contended by the
learned A.G.A. that in view of above, no interference is warranted in present
writ petition.
5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioners could not
over come the same.
6. Having heard, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for
State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 and upon perusal of record, we find that the
objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present writ petition
are clearly borne out from the record. Furthermore, the same could not be
dislodged by the learned counsel for petitioners with reference to the record.
CRLP No. 5545 of 2026
2
7. In view of above, the present writ petition fails and is liable to be
dismissed.
8. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
April 20, 2026
Imtiyaz
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
IMTIYAZ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…