SAROJ VIKASHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9874 of 2026

Saroj Vikash
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                   :   Shiva Ji, Vivek Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)                  :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Shri Vivek Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and learned
AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
impugned order dated 15.06.2026 passed by learned Special Judge
(S.C./S.T. Act), Prayagraj in Misc. Case/Application No.586 of 2026,
Police Station- Sarai Memrej, District- Prayagraj, by which the complaint
filed by the appellant under Section 173(4) BNSS has been treated into
complaint.

3. An application under Section 173(4) was moved by the complainant,
namely Saroj Vikas, against the accused persons, namely Yuvraj Singh,
Shakti Singh, Satish Singh, Kevala Prasad and Satish Mishra. The
allegation against the accused persons is that they caused injuries to the
complainant and also hurled caste-based abuses at him.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had
specifically approached the court below under Section 173(4) BNSS
seeking registration of an FIR and investigation into the cognizable
offences allegedly committed by the opposite parties. It is submitted that
the allegations disclose cognizable offences and involve matters requiring
collection of evidence through police investigation, which could not
effectively be undertaken by the appellant himself as a complainant. The
learned court below, without properly considering the nature of the
allegations and the necessity of police investigation, has mechanically
                                                        CRLA No. 9874 of 2026
                               2


treated the application as a complaint case. It is therefore submitted that
the impugned order dated 15.06.2026 is liable to be set aside and the
matter be directed to be dealt with in accordance with law.

5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the impugned order has been
passed after due consideration of the allegations and the material placed
before the court below. The allegations are primarily within the personal
knowledge of the appellant and the relevant evidence can be produced by
him in a complaint case. It is further submitted that no exceptional
circumstance has been shown warranting police investigation and that the
learned court below has rightly exercised its discretion in treating the
application as a complaint case. The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and is
liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the averments made in the application under Section
173(4) of the BNSS, the learned trial court, in the light of the relevant
case law referred to in the impugned order, treated the application as a
complaint. It is settled that the Special Court/Magistrate is not bound to
direct registration of an FIR in every case merely on the filing of an
application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS. Where the material facts
are within the specific knowledge of the complainant and the allegations
can be appropriately dealt with by treating the application as a complaint,
the court is not required to mechanically direct registration of an FIR. In
the present case, the learned trial court has considered the allegations and
the material on record, applied its judicial mind, and, for the reasons
recorded in the impugned order, rightly treated the application as a
complaint. No illegality or infirmity is therefore found in the impugned
order warranting interference by this Court.

7. Thus, having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
the material and evidence available on record, the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered
opinion that the learned trial court has rightly treated the application of
the appellant filed under Section 173(4) BNSS as a complaint. The
impugned order dated 15.06.2026 does not suffer from any illegality,
perversity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
                                                                                          CRLA No. 9874 of 2026
                                                                  3


                                    8. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed.

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



                                                                                             (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Ankit.




Digitally signed by :-
ANKIT VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad