Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SMT SIMRAN VERMA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is dismissed as ineffective because a FIR under the relevant sections had already been registered.

Summary

The petitioners, Smt. Simran Verma and another, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the actions of the State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The court observed that a First Information Report (FIR) had already been registered under Munsif No. 244 of 2026, invoking Sections 87 and 351(3) of the B.N.S., at Bhatni police station on 18 August 2026 against the same subject matter. Consequently, the court held that the petition had become ineffective and could not be entertained. The petitioners' counsel was unable to rebut the senior advocate's submission regarding the prior FIR. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition as ineffective.

Issues considered

  • What is the effect of a previously registered FIR on the maintainability of a writ petition challenging the same matter?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • maintainability
  • FIR
  • Section 87
  • Section 351(3)
  • dismissal

Judgment

                                                  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                                WRIT - C No. - 38320 of 2026

                                    Smt Simran Verma And Another
                                                                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                           Versus

                                    State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)           : Rabindra Tiwari, Vivek Singh Chandel
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)           : C.S.C.

                                    Court No. - 75
                                                     HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

                                    1. विद्वान स्थायी अधिवक्ता ने यह सूचित किया कि इस मामले में मु०अ०सं० 244 वर्ष
                                    2026, अंतर्गत धारा 87, 351(3) बी.एन.एस., थाना भटनी, जनपद देवरिया में दिनांक
                                    18.08.2026 को याची संख्या 2 के विरुद्ध प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज किया जा चुका है, अतः
                                    यह याचिका निष्प्रभावी हो चुकी है।

                                    2. याचीगण के विद्वान अधिवक्ता, विद्वान स्थायी अधिवक्ता द्वारा दिए गए उपरोक्त कथनों का
                                    खंडन नहीं कर सके।

                                    3. उपरोक्तानुसार यह याचिका निष्प्रभावी होने के कारण निरस्त की जाती है।


                                                                                        (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Pawan Kumar




Digitally signed by :-
PAWAN KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.