The court upheld the discretion of the Magistrate to treat an application under Section 173(4) as a complaint case, emphasizing that such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.

JUDGMENT :

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 3148 of 2024 (Smt. Raveena Meena Vs. Murarilal Meena and another), under Section 173 (4) of BNSS , 2023, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, by which the application under Section 173 (4) BNSS filed by the applicant has been treated as complaint case.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.12.2024 at about 4 p.m., the applicant was going to the market for some work, when Murarilal Meena and Subah Singh Meena met her in the market, made obscene gestures to her and passed dirty comments towards her. The applicant came home, told the whole incident to her husband and other family members. When her husband went to complain to the accused persons, those people abused him and assaulted him. Murarilal caught hold of the applicant from behind and did obscene acts with her. Hearing their screams, some passersby came and saved them. The accused people threatened her that they will falsely implicate her husband in a false case and also threatened them to kill. Applicant's husband complained about the incident to the higher officials of his department but nothing has been done. On 07.12.2024, the applicant also went to the police station to complain about the incident but no action was taken.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an application was filed by the applicant with the allegation that on 06.12.2024 at about 4 P.M. while she was going to the Market, Murarilal Meena and Subah Singh Meena have made dirty gestures and flirted with her. The applicant told the incident to her husband. When her husband asked Murarilal Meena and Subah Singh Meena about the incident, they abused and assaulted him. Therefore, an application was given to the police authorities on 07.12.2024 for lodging of the F.I.R. However, when nothing was done, the present application U/S 173(4) BNSS was moved. He further submits that a perusal of the application filed by the applicant clearly discloses the commission of a cognizance offence. He, therefore, submits that once the application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) BNSS disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, the Magistrate has erred in law in directing to proceed with the application as a complaint case. The Learned counsel for the applicant has contended with vehemence that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind.

5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has supported the impugned orders and pointed out that the grievance of the applicant has not gone unattended by the court below. The Magistrate after taking into consideration the entire gamut of the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly concluded to treat the application filed by the applicant under Section 173 (4) BNSS as a complaint case. The applicant shall still have an opportunity to prove his case before the court below.

6. Considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the present application.

7. Section 173 (4) BNSS re