Allahabad High Court
HIRA SINGH PALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
An order directing registration of an FIR is not a final order, so a criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
Summary
Hira Singh Pal filed a criminal revision challenging an order that directed the police to register an FIR under section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. The State argued that the petitioner, being a prospective accused, lacked locus standi to file such a revision. The Court examined whether the order directing FIR registration constitutes a "final order" within the meaning of Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to Section 458 of the B.N.S.S.). Relying on the Full Bench decision in Father Thomas v. State of U.P. (2011), the Court held that such an order is not a final order and therefore is not amenable to criminal revision. Consequently, the revision was dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues considered
- Whether an order directing registration of an FIR under section 173(4) B.N.S.S. is a "final order" within the meaning of Section 397 Cr.P.C./Section 458 B.N.S.S.
- Whether a prospective accused has locus standi to file a criminal revision against such an order
Legislation cited
Subjects
- criminal revision
- FIR registration
- final order
- locus standi
- Section 397 CrPC
- Section 458 B.N.S.S.
- prospective accused
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1361 of 2026
Hira Singh Pal
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dhirendra Srivastava, Raag Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that an application filed
by the opposite party no. 2/Malti Devi/complainant under section 173(4)
B.N.S.S. has been accepted. The concerned police station has been directed
to register the F.I.R. Hence, the present criminal has been filed by the
revisionist.
3. Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the revisionist is a
prospective accused, hence, he is having no locus standi to file the present
criminal revision and the criminal revision is not maintainable.
4. The issue of maintainability of a criminal revision against an order
directing registration of a First Information Report is no longer res integra.
The Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas versus State of U.P. and
another, 2011 (1) ADJ 333 (FB) has categorically held that such an order
does not amount to a "final order" within the meaning of Section 397 Cr.P.C.
(corresponding to Section 458 B.N.S.S.), and therefore, a criminal revision is
not maintainable.
5. In view thereof, the criminal revision is dismissed as not maintainable.
February 24, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…