Allahabad High Court
PARWATI PRAJAPATI @ PARWATI DEVI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition challenging the FIR is dismissed as the court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the aggressor issue without a trial.
Summary
Petitioners Parwati Prajapati and three others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 22‑02‑2026 lodged by a third‑party informant under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and several IPC provisions. The State argued that an earlier FIR dated 03‑02‑2026 had already been lodged by the petitioners themselves concerning the same incident, naming different accused, thereby creating cross‑complaints. The Court observed that the existence of reciprocal FIRs indicated that the incident was admitted by both sides and that the pivotal question of who was the aggressor could not be resolved without a full trial. Consequently, the High Court held that the writ petition did not merit interference and could not be entertained. The petition was therefore dismissed, and any interim relief previously granted was vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR can be entertained when reciprocal FIRs exist against the petitioners.
- Whether the High Court can determine the aggressor in the dispute without a trial.
- Whether the writ court has jurisdiction to interfere with the FIR registration under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC provisions.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- FIR
- cross FIR
- SC/ST Act
- criminal miscellaneous writ
- aggressor
- jurisdiction
- petition dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5575 of 2026
Parwati Prajapati @ Parwati Devi And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd Salman
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhlendra Pratap Singh, Deleep Kumar
Chaudhari, G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mohd Salman, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
AGA for State respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Akhlendra Pratap Singh
representing first informant-respondent 3.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner Smt. Parwati Prajapati @ Parwati Devi and three others have
approached this Court by means of present Criminal Miscellaneous Writ
Petition challenging the FIR dated 22.02.2026 lodged by first informant
respondent 3 Sri Shakti Prakash and registered as Case Crime No. 43 of
2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(Dha),
3(2)(va) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Karari,
District Kaushambi.
4. At the very outset, the learned AGA representing State respondents 1 and
2 submits that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on
02.02.2026, a prompt FIR dated 03.02.2026 was lodged by the first
informant Smt. Parwati Prajapati petitioner no. 1 herein and registered as
Case Crime No. 0021 of 2026 under Sections 191(2), 115(2) and 352 B.N.S.,
Police Station-Karari, District-Kaushambi. In the aforesaid FIR, the time of
occurrence is shown at 19:00 hours. As many as five persons namely Lallu,
Shiv Mahima, Shesh Rai, Anshu and wife of Lallu have been nominated as
named accused in the aforesaid FIR.
CRLP No. 5575 of 2026
2
5. In respect of the same incident, another FIR dated 22.02.2026 was lodged
by the first informant respondent no. 3 Sri Shakti Prakash and was registered
as Case Crime No. 0043 of 2026 under Section 115(2), 352, 351(3)
3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(va) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police
Station Karari, District Kaushambi. In the aforesaid FIR also, the time of
occurrence is mentioned at 19:00 hours. As many as four persons namely
Parwati Prajapati, Muneem, Jhodhi and wife of Jhodhi have been nominated
as named accused in the aforesaid FIR.
6. On the above premise, the learned AGA representing State respondent
nos. 1 and 2 submits that there are cross FIRs from both the sides. As such
the incident is admitted to the parties. In view of above, the primary question
to be answered as to who is the aggressor. The said question cannot be
answered in isolation of petitioner. In view of above, no interference is
warranted by this Court in present writ petition.
7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for the petitioners could
not overcome the same.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned AGA
representing State respondent nos. 1 & 2 and upon perusal of record, we find
that the objections raised by learned AGA 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 the petitioners with reference to
the record.
9. In view of above, the writ petition fails and liable to be dismissed.
10. It is accordingly dismissed.
11. Interim order if any shall stands vacated.
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
April 20, 2026
Arif
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…