DURYODHAN PRASAD ARYAversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9126 of 2025

Duryodhan Prasad Arya
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)                    :   Hanuman Deen Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :   G.A.

Court No. - 51
                  HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

  1. Heard Sri Hanuman Deen Verma, learned counsel for the appellant,
    learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Despite service of
    notice, none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

  2. By means of the present criminal appeal, the appellant has assailed the
    legality and correctness of the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the
    learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti in Misc. Criminal Case No.
    320 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the appellant under
    Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. for directing registration of F.I.R. has
    been treated as a complaint case.

  3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant allegedly purchased a
    four-wheeler vehicle bearing No. UP-32-ED-5019 (Maruti Swift Dzire,
    Model 2012, white colour) from opposite party no. 2 on 15.05.2023 for
    a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which included Rs. 2,25,000/-
    towards the sale price and Rs. 75,000/- towards loan repayment and
    repair expenses, and the payment was made in cash. The vehicle was
    stated to be registered in the name of one Masalhuddeen.

  4. It is further alleged that subsequently it came to light that the said
    vehicle had been reported stolen by its original owner, namely
    Masalhuddeen, pursuant to which the vehicle was taken into custody by
    the police. Thereafter, a compromise dated 16.09.2024 was entered into
    before the police authorities between the original owner, the appellant
    and opposite party no. 2, wherein the vehicle was returned to the
    original owner and opposite party no. 2 undertook to refund the entire
    amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the appellant by 15.10.2024.

  5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the said
    compromise, opposite party no. 2 failed to return the aforesaid amount
    and, upon being demanded, abused the appellant by using caste-based
    words and also extended threats to his life. It is submitted that
    applications were moved before the Station House Officer, Police
    Station Rudhauli and subsequently before the Superintendent of Police,
                                                         CRLA No. 9126 of 2025
                               2

   Basti, but no F.I.R. was registered.

 6. It is further contended that the appellant was constrained to file an
   application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. before the court below
   seeking a direction for registration of F.I.R.; however, the learned court
   below, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the
   case, treated the application as a complaint case on the ground that the
   evidence was within the control of the complainant.

 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is
   legally unsustainable as the dispute involves serious allegations of
   cheating, criminal breach of trust and offences under the SC/ST Act,
   and the core issues—namely, whether the appellant had actually paid
   Rs. 3,00,000/- to opposite party no. 2 and whether the vehicle was
   validly sold—require thorough investigation by the police, which
   cannot be effectively adjudicated in a complaint case.

 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and
   submits that the order passed by the learned court below requires no
   interference by this Court.

 9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
   parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the principal
   controversy revolves around the alleged transaction of sale of the
   vehicle, payment of consideration amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/-, the
   subsequent compromise, and the failure of opposite party no. 2 to
   refund the said amount.

10. The determination of these issues necessarily requires collection of
   evidence, including verification of the alleged cash transaction,
   examination of the sale documents, compromise deed, and the role of
   the parties, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be
   effectively undertaken without a proper police investigation.

11. The court below, while treating the application as a complaint case, has
   proceeded on the premise that the evidence is within the control of the
   appellant; however, such a view overlooks the fact that material aspects
   of the case, particularly the financial transaction and the circumstances
   under which the vehicle was sold, are matters requiring investigation.

12. This Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the
   present case, relegating the appellant to a complaint case would not
   serve the ends of justice, as it would deprive him of a proper
   investigation into the allegations, which is essential for bringing the
   truth on record.

13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the
   learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti is hereby set aside.

14. The matter is remanded back to the court below to reconsider the
   application of the appellant under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. afresh,
                                                                                       CRLA No. 9126 of 2025
                                                                       3

                                           in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made
                                           hereinabove.

                                        15. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.




                                                                                    (Madan Pal Singh,J.)
                                    April 23, 2026
                                    pks




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