Back
2026 Supreme(All) 761
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
Sushila Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 247 of 2026
Decided On : 27-04-2026
For the Appellants : Adarsh Kumar, Subhash Chandra Yadava
Where a legislation functions as a complete code for resolving grievances or financial irregularities, designated statutory authorities hold the exclusive mandate to initiate criminal proceedings. Private individuals, regardless of their official capacity, lack the locus standi to bypass these designated mechanisms via general criminal procedure provisions.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 173(4) - Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 - Sections 28, 32, Schedule I - Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Registration of FIR - Private complaint regarding financial irregularities in a government employment scheme - Magistrate's refusal to issue direction for FIR - Scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope and Ambit - The revisional court acts in a supervisory capacity to correct jurisdictional errors, perversity, or gross illegality - It does not function as an appellate forum to substitute its own view for that of the magistrate where the order is supported by material on record. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16)
(C) Statutory Interpretation - Special Enactment - A statute that acts as a complete code with an overriding effect prevails over general laws - Where a special enactment prescribes a designated authority to initiate criminal proceedings for financial irregularities, a private individual cannot invoke general provisions for mandatory registration of an FIR without demonstrating compliance with the statutory mechanism. (Paras 10, 24, 25, 30)
Facts of the case:
The revisionist filed a petition seeking a court-ordered registration of a criminal complaint concerning alleged financial irregularities in the administration of a rural employment program. A prior administrative inquiry report concluded that no major financial embezzlement occurred and that minor procedural lapses had already been addressed. The magistrate rejected the application for a court-mandated FIR, leading the revisionist to file this criminal revision.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the specialized regulatory framework for the employment scheme constitutes a self-contained code. This framework specifically vests the power to initiate criminal proceedings in designated authorities upon the discovery of prima facie irregularities. Because the legislation contains an overriding clause, general criminal procedure provisions cannot be used by private individuals to force the registration of an FIR in contravention of the specific statutory grievance process.
Issues: Whether a private individual has the locus standi to seek a court-ordered FIR under general criminal procedure when a special statute provides a definitive mechanism for grievance redressal and inquiry; and whether the magistrate’s refusal to direct an FIR was justified following an administrative inquiry report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a statute functions as a complete, self-contained mechanism for addressing financial irregularities, the remedy for any alleged lapse must be sought through the authorities designated by that specific statute. The magistrate's discretion to decline the registration of an FIR was properly exercised upon review of the administrative report, and the order suffered from no perversity or material illegality.
Result: Criminal revision petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual genesis of the criminal revision petition challenging the magistrate's rejection of a section 173(4) bnss application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments alleging financial irregularities and embezzlement of mnrega funds as grounds for fir registration. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. state's contention regarding the exclusivity of the mnrega statutory framework and the lack of locus for private complainants to seek fir registration. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. the scope of revisional jurisdiction is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors or perversity rather than acting as an appellate forum. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. discretionary nature of power under section 173(4) bnss requiring judicial satisfaction rather than mechanical exercise. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. the mnrega act, 2005, being a special enactment with an overriding effect, provides a self-contained code for dealing with financial irregularities. (Para 24 , 25 , 28) |
| 7. primacy of later special legislation and requirement of authorization for initiating firs in matters governed by specialized internal administrative mechanism. (Para 26 , 27 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. dismissal of the revision petition due to lack of merit and confirmation of the magistrate's order within the bounds of legal propriety. (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 20.12.2024, passed by the learned A.C.J.M., 1st, Basti in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2043 of 2024, Sushila Singh Vs. Resham Singh and others whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 173(4) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'B.N.S.S.') has been rejected.
2. This Court has condoned the delay in filing this revision petition vide its order dated 13.01.2026, and thereafter the matter was listed for hearing today.
3. The undisputed facts in this case are that the revisionist is an elected ward member of Gram Panchayat Majhauva Bakunth, Block-Saltauva Gopalpur, who moved an application no Misc. Case No. 173/12/2024 dated 30.09.2024 under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. before the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Basti, seeking a direction for registration of a First Information Report ((hereinafter referred to as 'FIR') at Police Station Rudhauli.
4. During the course of proceedings before learned A.C.J.M.-I, Basti, an inquiry report dated 26.11.2024, bearing No. 756/MNREGA/Shi. Janch/2024-25, was submitted by the Chief Development Officer (hereinafter referred as 'CDO'), Basti, before the court concerned. Thereafter, learned A.C.J.M.-I, Basti, by order dated 20.12.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2043 of 2024, arising out of Misc. Case No. 173/12/2024, rejected the said application of the revisionist, which has given rise to the present revision.
5. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, who submits that prior to the year 2021 elections, job cards under the MNREGA scheme were created in the names of family members of the Gram Pradhan. He further submits that during the period 2021-2022, the said Gram Pradhan, in collusion with the Village Development Officer and other block level officers, committed financial irregularities by re-billing for works already completed in the year 2018- 19 and by withdrawing funds against fictitious MNREGA works, particularly on canal bandh.
6. Sri Yadav further submits that on 22.10.2022, the Gram Pradhan transferred MNREGA funds into her personal account. In addition, she also made fraudulent payments by preparing fake job cards in the names of her husband Vipin Singh, brothers-in-law Vikas Kumar and Vishal, and father-in-law's brother Ramchandra, thereby embezzling government funds. Specific amounts have been attributed to such alleged transfers and withdrawals.
7. Sri Yadav contends that upon a complaint made to the District Magistrate, an inquiry was conducted by the Block Deve
