Allahabad High Court
BITTAN DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The conversion of the application under Section 175(3) BNSS into a complaint case does not suffer from any infirmity and the orders of the lower courts are upheld.
Summary
The petitioner Bittan Devi filed a petition under Article 227 challenging two orders: one of the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) dismissing a criminal revision, and another of the ACJM converting her application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS into a complaint case. She alleged that the respondents, in collusion with revenue authorities, fraudulently mutated land records in their favour without giving her an opportunity to object, constituting fraud that required investigation. The State argued that the petitioner had been aware of the mutations for many years and that the conversion to a complaint was proper. The High Court observed that the dispute was essentially a title dispute and that evidence of fraud could be produced even in complaint proceedings. Consequently, the Court upheld both lower court orders and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the conversion of an application under Section 175(3) BNSS into a criminal complaint is per se illegal.
- Whether the alleged fraudulent mutation of land records warrants setting aside the orders of the lower courts.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of being unaware of the mutation for two decades is credible.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 175(3)
Subjects
- Article 227
- BNSS
- Section 175(3)
- land mutation
- title dispute
- complaint conversion
- fraud
- High Court jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9807 of 2025
Bittan Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harsh Vardhan Singh, Shefali Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Shri Harsh Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Amrit
Raj, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed to set aside the impugned order dated 17.7.2025, passed by learned
Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act/Rape Second,
Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No.12 of 2025 (Bittan Devi vs. State of UP
and others), as well as order dated 13.12.2025, passed by learned ACJM,
Fifth, Jaunpur, in Case No.1831 of 2024, having registration No.2688 of
2024 (Bittan Devi vs. State of UP and others), under Section 175(3) of
BNSS, Police Station Shahganj, District Jaunpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents, in
collusion with the revenue authorities, got their names mutated pertaining
to Gata Sankhya 855, which in fact was the property of the petitioner after
the death of her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that initially the name of the petitioner was mutated in respect
of the above property. However, the respondents, in collusion with the
revenue authorities, got their names mutated without providing any
opportunity to the petitioner to file objections. He submitted that he
moved an application under Section 175(3) BNSS before the learned
ACJM, Jaunpur, but the said application was converted into a complaint
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the act committed
by the respondents and the revenue authorities amounts to an offence of
fraud and the allegations necessitate investigation. Therefore, the
A227 No. 9807 of 2025
2
conversion of the application under Section 175(3) BNSS into a
complaint case is per se illegal. He submitted that against the order dated
13.12.2024, he preferred Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2025. However, the
said revision was also dismissed on 17.07.2025. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that both the courts have erred in converting his
application under Section 175(3) BNSS into a complaint case because the
allegations require investigation and the petitioner-complainant cannot
tender such evidence during complaint proceedings. He submitted that
both the orders suffer from illegality and are liable to be set aside.
4. Sri R.P. Singh, learned AGA submitted that the petitioner herself has
stated in her application under Section 175(3) BNSS that her name was
mutated in the year 1990 and the names of the respondents were mutated
in the year 1992. He further submitted that the record filed with this
petition reveals that subsequently mutation in favour of the respondents
came into effect after an order passed by the revenue authorities. He
further submitted that the claim of the petitioner that she remained
unaware for nearly 20 years about the mutation in favour of the
respondents is unusual and difficult to believe. He therefore submitted
that the orders passed by both the courts do not warrant any interference.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by
both the courts below.
6. It is apparent from the allegations that the name of the respondents was
mutated in the year 1992, whereas the name of the petitioner was mutated
earlier. Therefore, the dispute between the parties appears to be a title
dispute. In the given circumstances, conversion of the application under
Section 175(3) BNSS into a complaint case does not suffer from any
infirmity because the evidences pertaining to fraud or other irregularities
can also be produced by the petitioner during the complaint proceedings.
7. Accordingly, both the orders passed by the courts below are upheld and
this petition stands dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
May 6, 2026
KJ
Digitally signed by :-
KAMARJAHAN ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…