SHIVSEVAK AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8023 of 2026

Shivsevak And 3 Others
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Shatrughna Yadav, Subhash Chandra
                                 Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : Ankit Pandey, Deepak Gaur, G.A.

Court No. - 93
                      HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a
prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 22.7.2026 passed by Special
Judge SC/ST (PA) Act, Kaushambi in Misc. Application No.987 of 2026
(Seema Devi Vs. Jai Singh & Ors.), under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., Police
Station Pashchim Sharira, District Kaushambi.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the learned
trial court has erred in directing registration of the FIR on an application
filed by the informant/victim under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. without
properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further
submitted that the allegations levelled against the accused-appellants do
not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and that the
application was allowed mechanically, without due consideration of the
material available on record. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned
order be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA
submits that, pursuant to the impugned order, the FIR has already been
registered against the accused-appellants.

5. An application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was moved by the
informant/victim before the trial court. The learned trial court, upon
                                                                  CRLA No. 8023 of 2026
                                     2


consideration of the application, allowed the same and directed the
concerned police station to register a case and investigate the matter, in
accordance with law. A perusal of the application under Section 173(4)
B.N.S.S. and the impugned order reveals that the learned trial court has
directed for registration of the criminal case on the ground that a prima
facie cognizable offence has been clearly made out against the accused-
appellants. It has also been informed by learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and learned AGA that case has been registered in compliance of
aforesaid order of the trial court.

6. In Mohd.Yousuf Vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt) & Anr. (2006) 1 SCC 627,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 11 as under:-

"11. The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking
cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If
he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking
cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start
investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There
is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process
of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the
cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as
indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many
words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR
should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to
register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complainant
because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the
Code only thereafter."

7. In Father Thomas ... Revisions; Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2010 SCC
OnLine All 2438, this Court held in para 71, 72 as under:-

"71. A. The order of the Magistrate made in exercise of powers under section 156(3)
Cr. P.C. directing the police to register and investigate is not open to revision at the
instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process
issued.

72. B. An order made under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is an interlocutory order and
remedy of revision against such order is barred under sub-section (2) of section 397
                                                                                            CRLA No. 8023 of 2026
                                                                      3


                                    of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."

                                    8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as also the law laid
                                    down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the aforesaid
                                    cases, this Court finds that the learned trial court has committed no
                                    illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order
                                    dated 22.7.2026.

                                    9. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

                                    10. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
                                    FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge
                                    concerned within 48 hours.



                                                                                               (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    RA




Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad