Allahabad High Court

SHABANA PARVEENversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 25 February 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

An application under Section 173(4) seeking FIR registration cannot be treated as a complaint without proper investigation and application of judicial mind.

Summary

The revisionist, Shabana Parveen, filed an application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. seeking registration of an FIR alleging forcible entry, theft and intimidation by the house owner Akil Ahmad and his family. The trial court treated the application as a mere complaint, holding that no new evidence would emerge from investigation and that the facts were within the complainant’s knowledge. The revisionist challenged this order, arguing that the matter involved a tenancy dispute, a locked room, and substantial alleged loss, requiring a proper investigation and FIR registration. The High Court examined the factual matrix, noting the improbability of the owners breaking into a tenanted, locked room and the need for judicial scrutiny of the tenancy claim. Finding the trial court’s order to be cursory and lacking application of judicial mind, the Court set aside the order and directed the trial court to reconsider the application afresh under Section 173(4). Consequently, the criminal revision was disposed of after allowing the revisionist’s relief.

Issues considered

Whether an application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. for FIR registration can be treated as a complaint without investigation.
Whether the trial court erred in not applying judicial mind while deciding the application.
Whether the tenancy and locked-room facts necessitate a formal investigation and FIR.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 305, 331(2), 331(4)
B.N.S.S. — s. 173(4)
Indian Penal Code — s. 380, 447, 457

Subjects

tenancy dispute
FIR registration
Section 173(4)
complaint vs investigation
criminal revision
judicial mind
property theft

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1262 of 2026

Shabana Parveen
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Asheesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order
dated 12.01.2026, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.
Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Muzaffarnagar, whereby the
application moved by the revisionist under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S.
for registration of an F.I.R. has been treated as a complaint case, is illegal
and improper.

3. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 has been
passed without proper application of judicial mind, and the application of the
revisionist has been registered as a complaint case, whereas the matter
requires investigation and an F.I.R. ought to have been directed to be
registered.

4. On perusal of the complaint, it transpires that the complaint has been filed
by Shabana Parveen (revisionist) against (1) Akil Ahmad, (2) Hashir, (3)
Asma, (4) Rozi, and three others. The application under Section 173(4) of
the B.N.S.S. has been filed under Sections 305, 331(2), and 331(4) of the
B.N.S. (corresponding to Sections 380, 447, and 457 I.P.C.).

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant/revisionist that the
father of the revisionist, namely Shamshad, has been in tenancy of the said
premises since the time of her grandfather, i.e., for about 33 years. The
tenanted premises are allegedly sought to be taken into possession by the
house owner, Akil Ahmad, with the help of certain miscreants. Due to the
illness of her father, the complainant was not able to reside in the said house.
CRLR No. 1262 of 2026
2

The opposite parties/house owner allegedly took advantage of this situation,
and in the night of 26.10.2025, Akil Ahmad, along with his son, wife,
daughter, and several other persons, broke open the lock of the complainant's
room.

6. It is alleged that they looted all the goods kept for the marriage of the
complainant's two sisters, including three large iron trunks, a single bed, a
grain tank, approximately 25 pieces of clothes worth about Rs. 1,50,000/-,
brass and copper utensils (51 each) valued at about Rs. 1,25,000/-, two
dinner crockery sets, several suits for ladies and gents, three dozen bed
sheets, other crockery items, two silver sets, two old coolers, two fans, one
refrigerator, and other domestic articles. It is further alleged that they
threatened the complainant's family.

7. On 28.10.2025, upon being informed by residents of the locality
(Mohalla), the complainant came to know about the incident. The alleged act
was stated to have been witnessed by Amiruddin, son of Salimuddin, and
Sazid, son of Kasim. Immediately after receiving the information on
28.10.2025, an intimation was given on helpline No. 112, and written
complaints were also submitted to the police authorities and to the Chief
Minister.

8. Prima facie, it appears that there is a dispute between the landlord and
tenant. It is highly improbable that all the family members, who are the
house owners, would break open a room which has allegedly been in
tenancy for more than 33 years and was locked at the time of the alleged
incident, especially when the complainant was not residing there. It
manifestly appears that the complainant was not residing at the said place. In
view of the aforesaid facts, it appears improbable that such a large quantity
of goods would be kept in a single locked room where the complainant was
not residing, particularly when the room is alleged to be under tenancy and
the opposite parties are the owners of the house, namely the husband, wife,
son, and daughter.

9. The learned trial court has passed the impugned order on the ground that
all the facts are within the knowledge of the complainant and that she can
prove the same by leading evidence, and that nothing new would emerge
from investigation; hence, the application was treated as a complaint case.
However, no detailed findings have been recorded by the learned trial court
CRLR No. 1262 of 2026
3

before registering the said application as a complaint case.

10. Prima facie, the contents raised by the applicant particularly regarding
tenancy for the last 33 years, the room being locked at the time of the alleged
incident, and her residence elsewhere required proper consideration.

11. The learned trial court has passed a cursory order without due
application of judicial mind and without assigning adequate reasons.

12. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 is hereby set
aside. The trial court is directed to decide the application under Section
173(4) of the B.N.S.S. afresh, in accordance with law.

13. With these observations, the criminal revision is disposed of.

February 26, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…