Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
DINESH PATHAK
Kamlesh Meena – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invocation of inherent jurisdiction of the court. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the maintainability of the application. (Para 3 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. allegations of conspiracy against the complainant. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. analysis of procedure under bnss for registering fir. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. locus standi of prospective accused in pre-cognizance stage. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. judicial mind application in passing the impugned order. (Para 18 , 20) |
| 7. judicial discretion and allegations substantiation. (Para 21) |
| 8. final dismissal of application as not maintainable. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Pathak, J.
1. Heard Ms Vatsala, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Dharmendra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned AGA for the State respondent no.1, and perused the record.
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S. for quashing the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Agra, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.3140 of 2025 (Criminal Misc. Application No.251 of 2025) (Veerendra
Prospective accused cannot challenge the direction for F.I.R. registration and investigation before cognizance, affirming no locus standi in such cases.
Prospective accused lack locus standi to challenge an order directing F.I.R. registration before cognizance is taken, validating the inherent jurisdiction limitations as per Section 528 and Section 1....
The court emphasized the necessity of conducting a preliminary inquiry before proceeding with an FIR to prevent abuse of legal process in cases with potential ulterior motives.
Magistrates have discretion under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. to treat applications for investigation as complaints, emphasizing judicial reasoning and necessity for police involvement.
Magistrate must mandatorily comply with Section 175(4) BNSS safeguards—report from public servant's superior and consideration of servant's assertions—before ordering FIR under 175(3) against officia....
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 175(3) of the BNSS to decide whether to register an FIR based on the application, assessing whether a cognizable offense is made out.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
