Triveni @ Beni vs State Of U.P. And 5 Other on 7 October, 2025

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Triveni @ Beni vs State Of U.P. And 5 Other on 7 October, 2025

Bench: Rajeev Misra





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:177243-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22889 of 2025   
 
   Triveni @ Beni    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 5 Other    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Mohd. Shahanshah Khan   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 47
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

Heard Mr. Mohammad. Shahanshah Khan, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. representing respondents 1, 2 and 3.

Petitioner Triveni @ Beni, who is the first informant, has approached this Court by means of present writ petition with the following prayer:-

"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court kindly may please to direct the Respondent no.2 (The Superintendent of Police, District-Sonbhadra) to supervise the investigation of the Case Crime No. 97 of 2025 U/S 319(2), 318(4), 316(2), 352, 351(2), 61(2) of B.N.S., P.S.-Jugail, District-Sonbhadra dated-3.09.2025 and ensure the fair and impartial investigation in accordance with law otherwise the blind petitioner deprive from justice.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble High Court kindly may please to direct to police authority to transfer the investigation from the Police Station-Jugail, District-Sonbhadra to other police station or by Independent Agency, otherwise blind petitioner deprive from justice.

And/or pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case so as to meet ends of justice."

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by contending that in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409, remedy lies to petitioner to approach he Jurisdictional Magistrate. As such, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same.

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. representing State opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 and upon perusal of record, we find that the present writ petition is misconceived, as remedy lies to he petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate for redressal of the grievance raised in present writ petition.

We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.

(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) October 7, 2025 HSM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court