SMT SUMITRA DEVIversusSTATE OF UP AND 6 OTHERS

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1817 of 2026

Smt Sumitra Devi
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus
State Of Up And 6 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                         :    Pawan Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)                        :    G.A.

Court No. - 51
                           HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1.    Case called out. None has appeared on behalf of informant /
respondents . As per office report, notice has been served on
informant/respondents; however, no one has appeared on behalf of
informant / respondents to oppose the appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi,
learned AGA for State.

3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has
been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.11.2025, passed by
the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj in Misc. Application
No.349 of 2025 (Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs. Umesh and Others) in under
section 173(4) Police station- Kotwali, District Maharajganj whereby the
learned Special Judge has been rejected the application.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that his application
under Section 173(4) BNSS was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on
the ground that no injury report in support of the allegations was
submitted by him. The Court also held that no application sent to the
concerned SHO had been submitted by the appellant; rather, he had
submitted an application to the concerned SSP. Learned counsel has
further submitted that the impugned order is patently illegal and is
contrary to the provisions of Section 173(4) BNSS. Hence, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.

5.   Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA for the State, has
submitted that the learned Trial Court has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6
SCC 287.
                                                                 CRLA No. 1817 of 2026
                                    2

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order
passed by the learned Trial Court.

7. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka
Srivastava (supra) is concerned, it is true that a direction was issued that,
before filing an application under Section 173(4) BNSS, it is mandatory
for the applicant to submit a copy of the complaint filed before the
concerned SHO and a copy of the complaint submitted to the concerned
Superintendent of Police ( SSP) after refusal by the SHO to register the
FIR. However, the judgment in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) was passed
in the year 2014. The provisions in the earlier Cr.P.C. relating to the
registration of FIR, as well as the current provisions in BNSS, are
virtually the same. It has been categorically provided that a person may
either inform orally or submit an application regarding the commission of
a cognizable offence. There may be cases where a person approaches the
concerned SHO and makes an oral complaint. Once a complaint is made
orally, it cannot be expected that a written application would necessarily
be available to be filed before the Court at the time of filing an application
under Section 173(4) BNSS. Moreover, the language of Section 173(4)
BNSS is very clear. It provides as follows:

".....Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police
station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1), may send the
substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police
concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation
to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this
Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police
station in relation to that offence, failing which such aggrieved person may make an
application to the Magistrate."

8. The provision clearly states that a person aggrieved by the refusal on
the part of the Officer-in-Charge of a police station may approach the
concerned SSP. Such refusal may arise either upon submission of a
written complaint or an oral complaint. Hence, an application under
Section 173(4) BNSS cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that a
written complaint submitted to the concerned SHO was not filed before
the Court at the time of filing the application.

9. The learned Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that the
appellant has not submitted any injury report to substantiate the allegation
of assault by the respondent. The said finding is perverse. In cases of
simple assault, it is not legally mandatory for a party to submit an injury
                                                                                         CRLA No. 1817 of 2026
                                                                  3

                                    report. Moreover, the Court should not insist upon an injury report in
                                    cases involving allegations of simple assault. Hence, the impugned order
                                    passed by the learned Trial Court requires interference.

                                    10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.11.2025, passed by the
                                    learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj, is set aside. The learned
                                    Trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order after considering the
                                    allegations mentioned in the application of the appellant.
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Mukesh
                                                                                            (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad