Allahabad High Court

SMT ARUNAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 8 March 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

A magistrate is not bound to order registration of an FIR on a Section 173(4) application and may lawfully treat it as a complaint where no illegality is demonstrated.

Summary

The applicant, Smt Aruna, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to set aside a order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate who had treated her Section 173(4) application as a complaint rather than directing registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for an alleged assault and robbery. She alleged that she was threatened with a pistol and her purse was stolen, and that the police failed to register an FIR despite her complaints. The magistrate held that there was no requirement to order FIR registration and that the application could be dealt with as a complaint, allowing the applicant to be examined under Sections 223 and 225 of the BNSS. The High Court examined the legal position that while cognizable offences generally require FIR registration, a magistrate is not compelled to order it on a Section 173(4) application and may treat it as a complaint. Finding no illegality in the magistrate’s decision, the Court dismissed the application as devoid of merit.

Issues considered

Whether a magistrate is obligated to order registration of an FIR on an application filed under Section 173(4) of the BNSS when a cognizable offence is alleged.
Whether treating the Section 173(4) application as a complaint violates any statutory provision.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 173(4), 223, 225, 528
Cr.P.C. — s. 173(4)

Subjects

FIR registration
Section 173(4) application
cognizable offence
complaint vs FIR
magistrate discretion
BNSS
Criminal Procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9565 of 2025

Smt Aruna
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vivek Singh

Court No. - 80
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant,
learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for
setting aside the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1558 of
2024 (Aruna Vs. Jayveer), under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on 11.10.2024
at about 11.30 A.M. the applicant was going to civil court, Muzaffarnagar
with her minor son, the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 stopped her near Bhopa
road railway bridge and threatened to kill her by showing pistol. They
also snatched the purse of the applicant, containing some money and gold
earrings. The applicant visited the local police for lodging the first
information report but no report was lodged by the police. Thereafter, she
sent an application to the S.S.P., Muzaffarnagar by registered post but no
first information report was registered. Thereafter she filed an application
under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Muzaffarnagar but the learned Magistrate vide order dated 08.01.2025
treated the same as complaint case. It is further submitted that a clear
cognizable offence is made out against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 but
the learned Magistrate has committed illegality in passing the impugned
order, which is liable to be quashed. There is criminal history of four
NA528 No. 9565 of 2025
2

cases against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the
judgments of this Court in the cases of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of
Uttar Pradesh, 2014 (2) SCC 1 and XYZ Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and Ors,, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1002.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned
A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for
the applicant and submitted that the present complaint has been filed
against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 due to previous enmity. The learned
Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned
order. The applicant will get an opportunity to be examined herself under
Section 223 B.N.S.S. and witnesses under Section 225 B.N.S.S.

6. As per fact of the case, the applicant filed an application under Section
173(4) B.N.S.S. for registration of the first information report with the
allegation that on 11.10.2024 at about 11.30 A.M. she was going to civil
court Muzaffarnagar along with her minor son. While she reached near
Bhopa Road railway bridge, the opposite party nos 2 to 5 stopped her by
showing pistol and stated to return back otherwise her entire family would
not survive. She further stated that they ran away from there when Sudhir
Kumar and Narendra Kumar reached there. The opposite party nos. 2 to 5
snatched her purse containing some money and gold earring. The said
application was treated as complaint case by the learned Magistrate. The
main submission advanced on behalf of the applicant is that the court
should have directed for registration of the case as a criminal case is made
out against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5. The judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel for the applicant cannot help.

7. It is settled principles of law that if a cognizable offence is made out in
any case, the police must register the case but it is also settled principles
of law that if anyone files an application under Section 173(4) Cr.P.C., the
concerned Magistrate is not bound to pass an order for registration of the
first information report and in some cases the said application may be
registered as complaint case.

8. In the present case, the learned Magistrate after perusal of the
NA528 No. 9565 of 2025
3

record, has reached on a conclusion that on the said application, no order
for registration of the first information report is required and, therefore,
the said application was registered as complaint case. The applicant will
get an opportunity to be examined herself under Section 223 B.N.S.S. and
witnesses under Section 225 B.N.S.S. There is no illegality in passing the
impugned order.

9. The application U/S 528 B.N.S. being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
March 9, 2026
Rmk.

Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…