The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has stayed criminal proceedings against a woman and her family members, noting that the First Information Report (FIR) filed against them by her husband appears prima-facie to be a retaliatory action. Justice Shree Prakash Singh, presiding over the single-judge bench, issued the order in an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), observing that the matter requires consideration.
Case Background: The case, titled Sana Bano And 6 Others Versus State Of U.P. & Another, originates from a matrimonial dispute. The applicant no. 1, Ms. Sana Bano, had initially lodged an FIR (No. 42 of 2025) on February 21, 2025, against her husband (opposite party no. 2) and his family members under sections 85, 115(2), 352, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Subsequently, on May 12, 2025, the husband lodged an FIR (No. 0095 of 2025) against Ms. Bano and six of her family members. The charges were filed under sections 126(2), 194(2), 115(2), and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Dhanpatganj, District Sultanpur. Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed on June 6, 2025, and the Judicial Magistrate in Sultanpur took cognizance and issued a summoning order on August 13, 2025. The applicants challenged the entire criminal proceedings, the chargesheet, and the summoning order before the High Court.
Arguments of the Applicants: The counsel for the applicants contended that the criminal case initiated by the husband was a retaliatory measure in response to the FIR filed by his wife. It was argued that the allegations were false and the prosecution was malicious, intended to harass the wife and her family.
To support this claim, the counsel drew the court’s attention to the injury report of the alleged victim in the husband’s FIR. The report, located at page 43 of the application, explicitly stated, “No fresh visible External mark of Injury seen all over the body at time of Examination.” The counsel argued that the absence of any injury proves the story was “concocted and false.”
The applicants’ counsel placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992, AIR 604), submitting that the present case was squarely covered by the principles laid down in that decision, thereby warranting the quashing of the proceedings.
Arguments of the State: Opposing the application, the learned counsel for the State refuted the applicants’ contentions. It was submitted that the investigation had found the allegations against the applicants to be true, and therefore, they were not entitled to any relief from the court.
Court’s Analysis and Decision: After considering the submissions from both parties and perusing the record, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Prakash Singh found that the matter required consideration. The court made several prima-facie observations.
Firstly, the court noted the sequence of the FIRs, stating, “…it is evident that the first information report was lodged by the applicant no. 1 against the opposite party no. 2(husband) on 21-02-2025 and on 12-05-2025, the instant first information report has been lodged against the applicant no. 1, who is the wife including other six persons of the family, which seems to be in retaliation.”
Secondly, the court took into account the medical evidence, observing, “The Injury Report is also evident that there is no mark of injury over the body of the injured though, there is allegation of assaulting the injured.”
Furthermore, the court noted a parallel proceeding, stating, “This court has also noticed that the opposite party no. 2 approached this court by way of instituting an application under section 528 of B.N.S.S. bearing no. 1074 of 2025, challenging the F.I.R. dated 12-05-2025, wherein this court has stayed the criminal proceedings against the opposite party no. 2 and his family members.” Based on these points, the court concluded, “Thus, prima-facie, matter requires consideration.”
Consequently, the court issued a notice to the opposite party no. 2 (the husband), returnable at an early date. Granting interim relief, the court ordered, “Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR, No.0095 of 2025… shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicants are concerned.”
The matter has been scheduled to be listed in the week commencing November 3, 2025, along with the husband’s related application.
Court Issues General Direction on Citing New Laws: In a preliminary note to the order, Justice Singh addressed a procedural issue concerning the new criminal laws. The court observed that filings often mention provisions of the newly enacted BNS, BNSS, and BSA without referencing the corresponding sections of the repealed IPC, Cr.P.C., and Evidence Act, which “creates tremendous inconvenience to this court and to the counsels.” Therefore, the court has directed that in all future matters citing the new acts, “the corresponding sections/provisions of the repealed Acts… shall be transcribed.” The Registry has been instructed to ensure strict adherence to this direction.
