DEVENDRA KUMAR ALIAS PANKAJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8887 of 2025

Devendra Kumar Alias Pankaj
                                                               .....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : Santosh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : Praveen Kumar Mishra, G.A., Sharique
                                   Ahmed

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant is taken
on record.

2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Praveen
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Sharique
Ahmed, learned counsel for opposite parties no.3, 4 and 6 to and learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C.
& S.T. Act against the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge,
S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 2882 of 2024 (Devendra Kumar vs. Ajeet Pandey and others)
whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 173(4) of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("B.N.S.S."), seeking a direction
for registration of the First Information Report and investigation into the
incident dated 16.11.2024, has been rejected.

4. Briefly stated, the case of the applicant is that on 16.11.2024 at about 5:30
p.m., he was assaulted, resulting in injuries for which he was admitted at
Maa Ahilya Bai Hospital from 21.11.2024 to 24.11.2024. The
appellant/applicant moved an application at Police Station Maharajpur and
thereafter, having received no response, sent an application by registered
post to the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar on 04.12.2024. No action
having been taken, the appellant/applicant approached the court below on
09.12.2024 under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. praying that the concerned police
station be directed to register the F.I.R. and investigate the matter.
                                                          CRLA No. 8887 of 2025
                                 2


5. In support of the application, the applicant filed his own affidavit, a copy
of the application sent to the Commissioner of Police, the registry receipt, a
copy of his caste certificate, photograph, copy of Aadhar card and
photocopies of the medical papers.

6. The medico-legal record on the file (examination of the applicant at Maa
Ahilya Bai Hospital on 21.11.2024) records an abraded contused swelling of
6x3 cm on the left side of the forehead and a lacerated wound of 1x0.5 cm
on the front of the forehead, both attributed to a hard and blunt object, with a
further opinion for a CT scan of the head and an opinion of a neurosurgeon,
and the injuries were opined to be about six days old. This medical evidence,
on its face, corroborates the applicant's version of having sustained injuries
in an assault on 16.11.2024.

7. The trial court called for a report from the concerned police station. The
report indicated that, according to the police enquiry, the appellant had been
asked not to pursue a complaint against the opposite party no.2 in exchange
for financial assistance towards his treatment; that a sum of Rs.8,000/- was
paid in cash to the appellant on 18.11.2024 by one Dilip, the contractor
under whom the appellant worked; that a further sum of Rs. 4,000/- was paid
at the rate of Rs.500/- per day between 21.11.2024 and 28.11.2024; and that
the parties had thereby arrived at an oral compromise. On this basis, and on
the further ground that the appelant's application dated 09.12.2024 before the
court below did not disclose the fact of his having received money/treatment
assistance from the opposite party side, the court below held that the
appellant had not approached the court with clean hands and that the
application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was not, prima facie, fit to be
allowed. The application was accordingly rejected by the impugned order
dated 19.04.2025.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has assailed the impugned
order on the following grounds that trial court has committed material gross
illegality by passing the impugned order and further, the trial court has
overlooked the medical evidence which corroborates the averments as stated
in the application. The order passed by the tile court is based upon surmise
and conjunctures, and it should be set aside, and the application of the
appellant should be allowed accordingly.

9. Learned A.G.A., and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, on the other
                                                            CRLA No. 8887 of 2025
                                  3


hand, have supported the impugned order, submitting that the appellant
deliberately suppressed material facts regarding receipt of money and the
alleged compromise from the court below, that this suppression alone
disentitled him to any discretionary relief, and that the police report itself
indicates a resolved dispute arising out of a workplace altercation.

10. Any compromise or receipt of money by the victim from the accused/his
employer, outside the court and prior to registration of the F.I.R., is wholly
without legal sanctity so far as the registration and investigation of a
cognizable offence is concerned. A cognizable, non-compoundable offence
does not stand extinguished merely because the victim has been paid money
towards treatment or has been persuaded, in the interregnum, not to press a
complaint; the right and the duty to have such an offence investigated in
accordance with law is not a private right capable of being bartered away by
a monetary settlement.

11. The medical report on record independently corroborates the occurrence
of the assault and the injuries sustained by the appellant, and was itself
available to and considered by the trial court its contents, read with the
report of the Circle Officer/Investigating Officer submitted to the police
authorities, were sufficient, prima facie, to disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence.

12. At the stage of considering an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S.,
the court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or weigh disputed questions
such as recovery of the weapon or the precise sequence of events. The trial
court has committed a manifest error of law in treating the alleged private
settlement and the omission to mention it in the application as a ground to
reject the prayer for registration of the F.I.R.. The trial court did not properly
exercise the judicial discretion vested in it. Even if the court below was not
inclined to issue a direction to the police to register and investigate the F.I.R.
straightaway on account of the disputed questions raised by the police report,
the settled procedure required the court below to treat the application under
Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. as a complaint and to proceed thereon as a
complaint case in accordance with law, rather than dismissing the
application outright and leaving the appellant without recourse.

13. So far as the question of a private compromise or receipt of money is
concerned, it is well settled that registration of an F.I.R. is mandatory where
                                                           CRLA No. 8887 of 2025
                                 4


the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and no
preliminary enquiry is contemplated in such cases. Cognizable and non-
compoundable offence remains an offence against the State and society, and
cannot be washed away merely because the victim has received money for
his treatment or has been persuaded to refrain from lodging a report.
Whatever may be the effect of such a settlement at the stage of sentencing,
or as a circumstance going to the conduct of the informant, it furnishes no
legal basis, by itself, to refuse the registration and investigation of a
cognizable offence, or to non-suit an application under Section 173(4)
B.N.S.S. at the threshold. The finding of the court below, insofar as it treats
the factum of an out-of-court settlement as dispositive of the application,
therefore proceeds on an incorrect appreciation of the law.

14. The medical record placed on file, read with the report submitted by the
Investigating Officer/Circle Officer to the police authorities, discloses a
definite injury caused by a hard and blunt object, for which a CT scan and
neurosurgical opinion were considered necessary. This medical evidence, at
the stage of registration, was sufficient prima facie material disclosing a
cognizable offence; it was not for the court below to discount this evidence
on the ground of the subsequent conduct of the parties.

15. It is equally well settled that at the stage of considering an application of
this nature, the court is not called upon to adjudicate disputed questions of
fact such as recovery of the weapon of assault, the precise manner of
occurrence, or the circumstances of the subsequent settlement, even
assuming that the trial court was, for the reasons recorded by it, disinclined
to issue a direction to the police for registration and investigation of the
F.I.R., the law is well settled that the Magistrate/court concerned is not
thereby absolved of further duty in the matter. where a Magistrate does not
consider it appropriate to direct the police to register and investigate a
cognizable offence on an application of this nature, the proper course is to
treat such application as a complaint and proceed to deal with it as a
complaint case in accordance with law, rather than to dismiss it outright,
leaving the informant without any remedy. The trial court, by rejecting the
application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. simpliciter, without considering
this alternative course available to it, has failed to properly exercise the
judicial discretion vested in it and has thereby committed an error of law
apparent on the face of the record.
                                                                                                CRLA No. 8887 of 2025
                                                                     5


                                    16. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the view that the
                                    impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T.
                                    (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case
                                    No.2882 of 2024 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

                                    17. The appeal is allowed.

                                    18. The impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge,
                                    S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Misc.
                                    Case No. 2882 of 2024 is hereby set aside.

                                    19. The trial court is directed to register the application dated 09.12.2024,
                                    filed under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., as a complaint, and to proceed with the
                                    same as a complaint case in accordance with law, including examination of
                                    the appellant and his witnesses under the relevant provisions applicable to
                                    complaint cases, uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned
                                    order or in this order on the merits of the rival contentions.

                                    20. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any final opinion on the
                                    merits of the allegations, the alleged compromise, or the defence of the
                                    opposite parties, all of which shall be examined by the trial court strictly in
                                    accordance with law at the appropriate stage.

                                    21. A certified copy of this order be sent to the court concerned forthwith for
                                    compliance.

                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Asha
                                                                                                     (Santosh Rai,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad