VIRENDRA BAHADUR PALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 358 of 2025

Virendra Bahadur Pal
                                                                       .....Revisionist(s)
                                        Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                   .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                  :    Nikhil Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :    G.A.

Court No. - 45
                    HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for revisionist, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned
A.G.A. for the State/O.P. No. 1. No is present on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3.

2. As per office report the service of notice upon O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 has been duly
served in the year 2025.

3. Perused the record.

4. The revisionist Virendra Bahadur Pal has approached this court by means of present
criminal revision challenging the judgment and order dated 11.12.2024 passed by
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau (herein after referred as to "Trial Court") passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1297 of 2024 (Virendra Bahadur Pal Vs. Pintu Yadav
and another) wherein the jurisdiction Magistrate treated the application under Section
173(4) BNSS filed by the revisionist/applicant as a complaint. Feeling aggrieved from
that order the present revision has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the jurisdictional Magistrate
illegally treated his application under Section 173(4) BNSS as a complaint while the
jurisdiction Magistrate should pass an order for investigation in the case. The
jurisdiction Magistrate is bound to pass an order for investigation exercising its power
under Section 173(4) BNSS when the story presented before it constitute a cognizable
offence mere the knowledge of facts of the applicant is not sufficient to treat the
application under Section 173(4) BNSS as a complaint. While the impugned order has
been passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate only on the ground that all the facts of the
case are within the knowledge of the applicant/revisionist. To buttress his
submissions, the learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon para no. 15 of this
court passed in the case of Anmol Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others{2021(1)ADJ
400},wherein this court has observed that, "Perusal of the order clearly shows that
the Magistrate has not applied judicious mind to the facts of the case and in
particular paragraph No. 3 of the application, which not only made out commission of
                                                                                                      CRLR No. 358 of 2025
                                                                        2

                                    a cognizable offence but an offence of molestation and sexual assault on the mother of
                                    the applicant. Thee application clearly stated that the accused persons are related to
                                    influential persons and as such neither the FIR was being lodged nor the medical of
                                    the applicant's mother was carried out. In such maters the medical examination of the
                                    victim is necessary. The medical report of the victim is of importance. Merely because
                                    the facts are in the knowledge of the applicant, direction to lodge FIR can not be
                                    refused. The gravity/seriousness of the offence, the requirement of the evidence for the
                                    purpose of launching a successful prosecution, and basically the interest of justice
                                    depending on the facts of each case, need be considered in passing the order under
                                    Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The offence, as per the contents of the application is not a
                                    matrimonial, commercial or family dispute, etc. The order does not assign any valid
                                    reason nor reflects application of judicious mind to relevant considerations and does
                                    not stand the test of the law as laid down in the case of 'Ram Deo Food Products'
                                    (Supra and 'Gulab chand Upadhyay' (Supra." and thus it is contended that the
                                    impugned order is liable to be set aside and present criminal revision deserves to be
                                    allowed by this court invoking its revisional jurisdiction.

                                    6. Per contra learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present revision and argued that
                                    from perusal of impugned order, it is clear that Jurisdictional Magistrate passed the
                                    impugned order on only on the basis of that all the facts are within the knowledge of
                                    applicant/revisionist but the Jurisdictional Magistrate found that the applicant can
                                    himself produce the evidence in the matter, meaning thereby in view of the
                                    Jurisdictional Magistrate there was nothing to bring on the part of record by way of
                                    investigation. So the Jurisdictional Magistrate rightly passed the impugned order
                                    applying the guidelines of Sukhwasi v. State of UP 2007 (59) SCC 739 of this case.
                                    So the present revision has no force at all and is liable to be dismissed.

                                    7.Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of record, the submission urged by
                                    learned A.G.A. clearly borne out of the record. The story presented by
                                    revisionist/applicant before the Jurisdictional Magistrate through application under
                                    S.173 (4) BNSS does not contain any material which is to be pointed out to be
                                    recovered by the police in statutory investigation.

                                    8. In view of above, the present revision has no force at all and requires no
                                    interference of this Court.

                                    9.Accordingly it is dismissed.




                                    May 6, 2026
                                    RPD
                                                                                               (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad