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 :
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.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the instant application at the behest of the prospective accused, assailing the order dated 5.7.2025, whereby a simple direction has been issued for registration of the F.I.R. and investigation of the matter. Thus, with the consent
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.
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.
The court emphasized that a Magistrate must apply judicial discretion and ascertain the existence of a cognizable offence before directing police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
The court ruled that aggrieved parties must seek investigation remedies through the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023, rather than filing writ petitions under Article 226.
The court clarified that Section 175(4) of the BNSS is discretionary, not mandatory, allowing the Magistrate to independently decide on investigations without undue influence from prior orders.
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to determine whether to direct an investigation, particularly in civil disputes masquerading as criminal matters.
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
