HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2838 of 2025 Smt. Manju Agarwal And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s)

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devesh Pandey, J.P. Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vipin Chandra Pandey, G.A.

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

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. J.P. Pandey, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Vipin Chandra Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4.

2. Perused the record

3. Petitiners-Smt. Manju Agarwal And 4 Others have approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the FIR dated 22.01.2025 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Smt. Surbhi Agarwal and registered as Case Crime No. 0044 of 2025, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 307 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Sikandara, District-Agra.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that from perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that the occurrence/occurrences giving rise to present criminal proceedings are alleged to have occurred from 16.01.2024 to 14.06.2024. However, the FIR in respect of the same was lodged on 24.01.2025 i.e. after expiry of a period of 7 months. As such, the FIR is highly belated. In view of above, the criminal prosecution of petitioners on the basis of such a delayed FIR cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for petitioners has then taken the Court to the body of FIR and on basis thereof, he submits delay in lodging the FIR. He, therefore, submits that even though the FIR explaining the delay in lodging the FIR. As such, no criminal prosecution of petitioners can be sustained on the basis of such a delayed FIR. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for petitioners has referred to the judgments of Supreme Court in (i). P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, (ii). P. Rajagopal and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866 (paragraph 8), (iii). Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine 1732 , (iv). Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176 and (v) Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 938, wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that if the FIR has been lodged with delay but no plausible explanation has come forward explaining the delay in lodging the FIR, then the criminal prosecution of an accused on the basis of such a delayed FIR cannot be sustained.

5. In the case of Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur (Supra), the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the FIR.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 3 SCC 791 quashed the conviction of accused therein on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR.

7. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for petitioners thus submits that the impugned FIR cannot be sustained. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Vipin Chandra Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant- respondent-4 have vehemently opposed the present writ petition. They submit that since the impugned FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. Petitioners are guilty of committing an act, which is not only illegal but also immoral. They, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioners in support of present writ petition as noted herein above with reference to the record at th