Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SMT. KAVITA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is dismissed as ineffective because an FIR under MCO 310 of 2026 has already been filed.

Summary

The petitioners, Smt. Kavita and another, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court against the State of Uttar Pradesh and three others. The court observed that a First Information Report (FIR) under MCO 310 of 2026, invoking sections 87, 137(2) and 351(3) of the B.N.S., had already been lodged on 17 September 2026 against the accused identified as Yachi No.2. The petitioner’s counsel was unable to rebut this submission. Consequently, the court held that the petition had become ineffective in view of the pending criminal proceeding. The petition was therefore dismissed as a matter of law.

Issues considered

  • Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an FIR concerning the same matter has already been registered.

Legislation cited

  • MCO 310 of 2026 — s. 137(2), 351(3), 87

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • FIR
  • maintainability
  • dismissal
  • procedural bar

Judgment

                                                  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                                WRIT - C No. - 38364 of 2026

                                    Smt. Kavita And Another
                                                                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                            Versus

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

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)                        :   Rajesh Kumar Mishra
                                    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 310 वर्ष
                                    2026, अंतर्गत धारा 87, 137(2), 351(3) बी.एन.एस., थाना मिलक, जनपद रामपुर में
                                    दिनांक 17.09.2026 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.