HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27774 of 2025 Madhukar Dhar And 14 Others .....Petitioner(s)

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Kumar Saroj, G.A.

Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ramesh Chandra, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents 1,2 and 3 and Mr. Nagendra Bahadur Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant, respondent 4.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioner, Madhukar Dhar and 14 others have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 29.09.2025 lodged by first informant respondent 4, Smt. Anamika Nigam and registered as Case Crime No. 563 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 89 B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Handia, District Prayagraj.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that from perusal of FIR, it is apparent that the occurrence giving rise to the present criminal prosecution of petitioner is alleged to have occurred on 10.04.2025. However, the FIR in respect of the same has been lodged only on 29.09.2025 that is after an expiry of a period of five and a half months. As such, the FIR is highly belated. The learned counsel for petitioners has then taken the Court to the impugned FIR and on basis thereof he contends that no explanation whatsoever has come forward in the FIR explaining the delay and latches in lodging the FIR. It is, thus, urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that since the FIR is highly belated but the delay in lodging the FIR has not been sufficiently explained, therefore, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners on the basis of such a belated FIR cannot be sustained. He, therefore, contends that in view of above, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court in present writ petition.

5. It is then contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that apart from the immediate family members, others have also been nominated as named accused in the FIR. However, no pin pointed allegations have been made against the other distant relatives of the husband of the first informant, respondent 4. Moreover, the allegations made in the FIR with regard to demand of dowry and commission of physical and mental cruelty by other accused that is other than the husband and immediate family members, are vague and bald allegations.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 as reaffirmed in Paramjeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1976 and Urmila Devi and others v. Balram and another, 2025 SCC OnLine 1574. The learned counsel for petitioners thus submits that the impugned FIR in so far as it implicates petitioners cannot be sustained. As such, the impugned criminal prosecution of aforesaid petitioners, pursuant to the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents 1,2 and 3 submits that from the perusal of FIR impugned in present writ petition, commission of a cognizable offence is clearly made out. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition.

8. Mr. Nagendra Bahadur Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant, respondent 4 contends that prior to the impugned FIR being lodged, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Accordingly, a compromise deed dated 06.07.2025 was drawn, copy of which is on record at page 39 of the paper book. However, petitioner 1, who is the husband, did not honor the said compromise.

Thereafter, the parties initiated pre-litigatio