Gudiya Chauhan v. Union Of India And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 323, 504
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 468
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 514
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents prays for and is granted two weeks time to seek instructions from respondent no. 4- S.P., Ballia, in the light of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. (Section 514 of B.N.S.S.) as to whether cognizance has been taken by the…
Judgment
: Dhiraj Srivastava : Rajesh Tripathi, A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Vivek Tripathi Court No. - 1 HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
Heard Shri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 3.
Case was heard on 15.10.2025 and Court has passed the following order:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. It is pointed out that against the petitioner an N.C.R. No. 4 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C. has been lodged by one Smt. Siyani Devi w/o Shivanand Chauhan on 8.1.2021 and the maximum punishment under aforesaid sections is two years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. (Section 514 of B.N.S.S.) cognizance cannot be taken after three years by the Court in the present case and there would be no effect of pendency of N.C.R. No. 04 of 2021, therefore, it may be treated as no case is pending against her.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents prays for and is granted two weeks time to seek instructions from respondent no. 4- S.P., Ballia, in the light of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. (Section 514 of B.N.S.S.) as to whether cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned or not.
Put up this case on 29.10.2025, as fresh. "
3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 15.10.2025, learned counsel for the respondents has produced the instruction dated 27.10.2025, which is taken on record. As per paragraph nos. 3 & 4 of the instruction, after 2 WRIC No. 24538 of 2025 investigation charge sheet was prepared after four years in NCR No.4 of 2021, which is ultimately rejected by the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 27.10.2025 on the ground of delay in light of Section 468 Cr.P.C. (presently Section 514 of B.N.S.S.). Now, it is undisputed that no criminal proceedings is pending against the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, writ of mandamus is issued to respondent no.3 to proceed for renewal of passport in accordance with law maximum within a period one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that renewal passport shall not be rejected on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings i.e. NCR No. 4 of 2021.
Operative part
5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. October 29, 2025 Junaid (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 323, 504; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 468; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 514.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.