Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAMESHWAR PANDEY @ TOPI WALAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

An order permitting registration of a criminal case under section 175(3) of the BNSS is interlocutory and not subject to revision under sections 438/442 of the BNSS or section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C.

Summary

The revisionist Rameshwar Pandey filed a criminal revision (No. 8972 of 2025) challenging an order dated 25‑09‑2025 of the Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, which had allowed an application under section 175(3) of the BNSS to direct the police to register a FIR. The State raised a preliminary objection that the order was interlocutory, relating to the pre‑cognizance stage, and therefore not subject to revision under sections 438/442 of the BNSS or section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. The High Court examined the precedents of Father Thomas v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) CrLJ 2278 and Kamlesh Meena v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) SCC OnLine ALL 4386, which held that such orders are purely interlocutory. Relying on those decisions, the Court concluded that the impugned order could not be attacked by revision. Consequently, the revision was dismissed at the admission stage.

Issues considered

  • Whether an order allowing an application under section 175(3) of the BNSS, read with section 173(4), is an interlocutory order.
  • Whether a revision is maintainable against such an interlocutory order under sections 438/442 of the BNSS or section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C.

Legislation cited

  • BNSS — s. 173(4), 175(3), 438, 442
  • Cr.P.C. — s. 397(1)

Subjects

  • criminal revision
  • interlocutory order
  • pre‑cognizance stage
  • section 175 BNSS
  • jurisdiction
  • High Court of Allahabad

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8972 of 2025

Rameshwar Pandey @ Topi Wala
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)               :   Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :   G.A.

Court No. - 49
                      HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.

2. Present Criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the
impugned order dated 25.09.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
Siddharth Nagar, in Criminal Misc. Case No.96 of 2025 (Ashish Kumar
Pandey Vs. Rameshwar Pandey @ Topi Wala and Others), under section
175(3) of BNSS, Police Station Uska Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar,
whereby the learned court below has allowed the application moved by the
opposite party no.2, under section 175(3) of BNSS.

3. Learned AGA for the State has raised a preliminary objection on the
ground that an order allowing application under section 173(4) read with
section 175(3) of BNSS is an order relating to pre-cognizance stage and the
proposed accused has no locus standi to prefer a revision against the order
on the ground that it is purely an interlocutory order, as has been laid down
by Full Bench of High Court, Allahabad, in the case of Father Thomas Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2011) CrLJ 2278 and more recently in
the case of Kamlesh Meena Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2025
SCC OnLine ALL 4386.

4. Perusal of record shows that the present revision has been preferred by the
revisionist being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, passed
                                                                                               CRLR No. 8972 of 2025
                                                                     2


                                    by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, in Criminal Misc. Case
                                    No.96 of 2025 (Ashish Kumar Pandey Vs. Rameshwar Pandey @ Topi Wala
                                    and Others), under section 175(3) of BNSS, Police Station Uska Bazar,
                                    District Siddharth Nagar, whereby the learned court below has allowed the
                                    application moved by the opposite party no.2, under section 175(3) of BNSS
                                    and directed the Station House Officer, Uska Bazar, District Siddharth
                                    Nagar, to register a criminal case and to investigate the matter, in the light of
                                    ratio decidendi given by the Full Bench of High Court, Allahabad, in the
                                    case of Father Thomas (supra) and more recently in the case of Kamlesh
                                    Meena(supra).

                                    5. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the
                                    impugned order dated 25.09.2025 is purely interlocutory order and no
                                    revision is maintainable under the provision of section 438/442 of BNSS,
                                    2023 or section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. against an interlocutory order. Hence, the
                                    present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage
                                    itself.

                                    6. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is hereby dismissed.

                                    April 9, 2026
                                    VKG
                                                                                               (Achal Sachdev,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.