Allahabad High Court
RAM BHAWANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 9 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court dismissed the revision, finding no illegality in the trial court’s order.
Summary
The revisionist alleged that after a dispute in which a wall and door were broken, he was booked for breach of peace, released on bail, and subsequently assaulted by the opposite parties who attempted to throw him into a well. He sought to lodge an FIR for the assault, but the police failed to register it despite multiple complaints, leading him to file an application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS before the trial court, which was rejected. The State contended that a criminal case under Sections 352, 351(2) and 324(4) BNS was already pending against the revisionist and that the application was an attempt to exert pressure. The High Court examined the submissions and the record, found no illegality or impropriety in the trial court’s order, and held that the revisionist could still file a fresh complaint if desired. Consequently, the revision was dismissed and the trial court’s order upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the trial court rejecting the application under Section 173(4) BNSS is illegal or improper.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court’s decision in the present revision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar National Security Act — s. 173(4)
- B.N.S. — s. 324(4), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- criminal revision
- Section 173(4)
- breach of peace
- FIR registration
- police inaction
- appeal dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2949 of 2026
Ram Bhawan
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 9 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shriyansh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and the learned AGA
appearing for the state.
This criminal revisionist has been filed by the revisionist against the order
02.02.2026 passed by learned Upper District and Session Judge/Special
Judge (D.A.A. Act) Banda in Criminal Misc. Case No. 05 of 2026 (Ram
Bhawan Vs. Hariom Tiwari and others), under Section 173(4) BNSS, Police
Station Mataundh, District Banda.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, there
was dispute between the revisionist and opposite parties in which the wall
and the door was broken on 26.12.2025 at about 10 p.m. in the night. He
called the police on Dial-112 on which police came and took parties to the
police station thereafter released opposite parties and booked the revisionist
for breach of peace. When he was released on bail and arrived at his home,
he was assaulted by opposite parties and they were trying to throw him in a
well after having him tied. In the meantime, his daughter-in-law, called the
police on Dial-112 then the opposite parties went away. He went to the
police station but no F.I.R. was lodged. There were several injuries on his
person and he went to District Hospital where he was provided treatment but
no medical report was prepared on 31.12.2025. On 1.1.2026 when he went
to police station to lodge an F.I.R. it was again not lodged as a result he sent
an application in this regard to S.P. Banda and also to the DIG but no any
action was taken by the said authorities that was the reason present
application was filed before the learned trial court. The learned trial court
has rejected the application without considering the facts and circumstances
of case application under Section 173(4) BNSS filed by the revisionist that is
illegal and inappropriate, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by
learned trial court dated 02.02.2026 and allow the revision.
CRLR No. 2949 of 2026
2
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this
case there is dispute between both the parties regarding which a Case Crime
No. 242 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(2), 324(4) BNS is already
registered against the informant/revisionist by the opposite party and for
making pressure on them, he has filed the present application before the
learned trial court by exaggerating the facts. The learned trial court has
considered all these facts and then passed the order in question. Further
contended that the revisionist may have an option to make a complaint since
all the facts within his knowledge and nothing is to be recovered on search
by the police during the course of investigation.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of
record and the contents of application under section 173(4) BNSS and order
passed by learned trial court, there appears no any illegality or impropriety
in the order passed by learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant
interference by this Court.
However, the revisionist may have an option to file a complaint before
learned Court, if he so desires. This order will not come in the way as bar.
Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of finally.
May 14, 2026
Anurag Singh
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…