Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
DINESH PATHAK
Kamlesh Meena – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
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 Singh Vs. G.M. Amrendra Kumar & Another), under Section 173 (4) of B.N.S.S., 2023, Police Station- Etmaauddaulaa, District Agra, whereby SHO Etmaauddaulaa, Police Commissionerate, Agra, has been directed to register an F.I.R. against the present applicants and investigate the same.
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
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....
Prospective accused cannot challenge the direction for F.I.R. registration and investigation before cognizance, affirming no locus standi in such cases.
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
