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 173(4) B.N.S.S.

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 of the matter. Thus, with the consent of the parties, maintainability of the instant application at the behest of the prospective accused, before issuance of process or taking of cognizance, is being heard and decided.

4. Record evinces that the respondent no. 2 (complainant) has moved an application under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S. with the prayer that Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station- Etmaauddaulaa, Agra, may be directed to investigate the matter after registering the written complaint of the applicant/complainant. In his application, the respondent no.2 came with the plea that:-

(i) He retired from the post of Manager in January 2019 after rendering 39 years of service in the Bank of India, and belongs to the Scheduled Caste community.

(ii) The opposite party, Amrendra Kumar (accused), harbours a long-standing enmity against the applicants and, in conspiracy with other opposite parties, namely, Jeevan Kamle, Kamlesh Meena and Anjani Kumar, attempted to defame and falsely implicated him in a fabricated case. To that end, a false, fabricated and forged complaint letter was sent in the name of one Ramesh Chand, bearing his forged signature, to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank, requesting an inquiry.

(iii) Additionally, the travel bills sanctioned by the Bank in favour of the applicants were sent for verification to Sri Sanjeet Kumar, Assistant General Manager, Field General Manager, and others. After verification, the travel agency owner, Jitendra Singh, was allegedly coerced by the said officers to declare the bills as forged, but Jitendra Singh stated that no forged bill had ever been prepared at his establishment.

(iv) In support of the complaint, the complainant has attached the copies of the forged and fabricated applications, affidavits of Ramesh Chandra and Jitendra Singh and other relevant documents.

5. The learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Agra, after perusal of the documents and the statement of witnesses, came to the conclusion that the complainant is a member of the Scheduled caste community and had retired from the post of Bank Manager in the year 2019 after 39 years of service. The opposite parties (applicant herein), who are also officers and employees of the bank, conspired to humiliate th