# Gayatri Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 77
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-25
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 5493 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gayatri-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52158
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Section 363 - Kidnapping - Right to life -
Both the parties to the marriage was adult
- Prosecutrix, in her statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C. admitted the marriage with IInd
petitioner by her freewill and also stated
fearing for her life at the hand of her uncle
- Nothing was done by the Magistrate -
No action against uncle was taken by the
Police authority - How far married couple
is
needed
safeguard
-
Held,
first
petitioner's uncle (father's brother) has
absolutely no right to lodge the impugned
FIR - Further held, honour killing in such
matters is not an unknown phenomenon
and it is very important to save a human
life
from
extinction
on
account
of
misguided
emotions
or
notions
of
morality. This issue is quite independent
of the issue of matrimony that the parties
have entered into. - No citizen can kill
another for holding a different opinion and
it is the foremost duty of the State to
preserve human life - The impugned FIR
and
all
proceedings
taken
pursuant
thereto are manifestly illegal and ultra
vires. (Para 9, 10 and 12)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

St. of Har. & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors.; 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335

## Text

6 All. Gayatri Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
77
those decisions are not relevant for
deciding
this
question.
Therefore,
those decisions would not affect the
binding values of the Full Bench
decisions in In Re : Provision of
Section 14 (a) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Amendment Act and
Ghulam
Rasool
Khan v. State
of
U.P..

15. In view of the aforesaid
discussion,
the
application
under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the
applicant seeking quashing of the
charge-sheet, the summoning order
and the entire proceedings of Case
under Sections 323, 504, 506, 241 IPC
& Sections 3 (1)(Da)(Dha) of 14-A of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 is not entertainable and the same
is dismissed, leaving it open to the
applicant to avail the statutory remedy
under Section 14-A of the 14-A of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.
---------
(2024) 6 ILRA 77
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 5493 of 2024

Gayatri Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Punit Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Cancellation of fair price
shop
license
-
Maintainability
-
Alternative remedy - Petitioner has an
alternative and equally efficacious remedy
of filing of appeal u/s 13(3) of U.P.
Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale
and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.

Writ petition disposed of granting
liberty
to
petitioner
to
approach
appellate authority. (E-4)

Present
petition
challenges
the
orders
dated
24.01.2024
and
12.04.2024.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish
Mathur, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for
petitioner and learned State Counsel
for opposite parties.

2.

Petition
has
been
filed
challenging orders dated 24th January,
2024 and 12th April, 2024 pertaining
to cancellation of petitioner's fair
price shop license.

3. Learned State Counsel at the very
outset has taken a preliminary objection
regarding maintainability of this petition
since petitioner has an alternative and equally
efficacious remedy of filing of appeal under
Section
13(3)
of
the
U.P.
Essential
Commodities (Regulation of Sale and
Distribution Control) Order 2016.

4. In view of aforesaid, petition is
disposed of granting liberty to petitioner to
approach the appellate authority against
aforesaid orders, which if entertained shall be
decided expeditiously without granting any
undue adjournment.
---------
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 6 ILRA 78
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9396 of 2024

Smt. Naziya Ansari & Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manoj Kumar Rajbhar, Surendra Mohan
Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Ravindra Prakash Srivastava

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Section 363 - Kidnapping - Right to life -
Both the parties to the marriage was adult
- Prosecutrix, in her statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C. admitted the marriage with IInd
petitioner by her freewill and also stated
fearing for her life at the hand of her uncle
- Nothing was done by the Magistrate -
No action against uncle was taken by the
Police authority - How far married couple
is
needed
safeguard
-
Held,
first
petitioner's uncle (father's brother) has
absolutely no right to lodge the impugned
FIR - Further held, honour killing in such
matters is not an unknown phenomenon
and it is very important to save a human
life
from
extinction
on
account
of
misguided
emotions
or
notions
of
morality. This issue is quite independent
of the issue of matrimony that the parties
have entered into. - No citizen can kill
another for holding a different opinion and
it is the foremost duty of the State to
preserve human life - The impugned FIR
and
all
proceedings
taken
pursuant
thereto are manifestly illegal and ultra
vires. (Para 9, 10 and 12)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

St. of Har. & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors.; 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.
&
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners
is
permitted
to
implead
the
S.P.
Siddharthnagar, as a party respondent, to
this petition, during the course of the day.

2. The first petitioner is an adult
woman aged about 21 years. It is alleged
that the second petitioner is an adult man.
They have married according to their
freewill and wish. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has pointed out that the first
petitioner's Secondary School Certificate
issued by the Maharashtra State Board is on
record, which shows her date of birth as
25.04.2003. She is, therefore, now aged 21
years. Apparently, she has married the
second petitioner on 17.04.2024 according
to Muslim rites, regarding which there is a
marriage
certificate
issued
by
the
Telangana
State
Waqf
Board
dated
25.04.2024. It has been issued by the Chief
Executive Officer of the said Board.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
points out that not only the Police went
after the second petitioner to arrest him in
connection with the impugned FIR, but also
have taken the first petitioner into unlawful
custody and handed her over to her uncle,
respondent no.3, one Mohd. Jaheer, son of
Tahir. The first petitioner was produced
before the Magistrate by the Police and her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
recorded. In her statement, the prosecutrix
has categorically said that she is 21 years