# Lalit Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 281
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5718 of 2025
- **Bench:** Nalin Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalit-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53521
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

G.A., Kameshwar Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Special Judge erred in refusing to
direct
police
investigation
and
instead
registering the application as a complaint case?

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3), 202(1)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Section 14-A(1) - Criminal Appeal u/s 14-A(1)
of the SC/ST Act, - challenging the impugned
order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act),
whereby the trial court treated the application of
the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for
lodging of FIR against the accused persons as a
complaint case - and dismissed the prayer for
police investigation - plea taken that, the
Magistrate
was
obligated
to
direct
FIR
registration for cognizable offences - court finds
that - A Magistrate or Special Judge has judicial
discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to either
direct
police
investigation
or
treat
the
application as a complaint - and If the
complainant is aware of all facts, parties, and
evidence, and no recovery or police assistance is
required, the court may proceed under Chapter
XV of Cr.P.C. - further, the presence of CCTV
footage does not mandate police investigation if
the court can obtain it during inquiry under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. - held - court, relying on
authoritative judgments, upheld the Magistrate's
discretion to proceed under the complaint
procedure
when
circumstances
do
not
necessitate
police
investigation
-
further,
concluded that, it was not a case which requires
any investigation by the police and it ought to
be registered as a complaint case - court founds
no illegality or impropriety in the impugned
order - consequently, that may require any
interreference through exercise of appellate
jurisdiction of this court - accordingly, appeal is
dismissed. (Para - 15, 16, 17, 18)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 2001 SC 571 - Ram Babu Gupta v. State of
U.P., (2001) 43 ACC 50 (F.B.) - Sukhwasi v.
State of U.P., (2007) 59 ACC 739.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.),
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal complaint case, element of cognizable
offence, Judicial discretion, Police investigation,
refuse to registration of FIR, Res integra, clunky
plea, relevant evidence.

CASE ARISING FROM
Judgment dated 23.09.2024 passed by the
Special Judge (SC/ST)/Additional Session Judge,
Ballia in Criminal Misc. Case No. 130 of 2024 -
Police Station - Kotwali, District - Ballia.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Shri Maha Prasad.
Counsel for Respondent: - Shri Kameshwar
Singh, AGA.

## Text

7 All. Lalit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
281

32. In view of the above, the present
appeal is allowed and the appellant no. 1
Radhey Shyam is acquitted of the charges.

33.
Accordingly,
judgment
of
conviction and order of sentence is set
aside. The appellant Radhey Shyam is on
bail and his personal bond is cancelled and
sureties are discharged and further directed
to furnish bail bond in compliance of
Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of
the Court concerned within two month
from today.

34. The Trial Court's record be
remitted back along with copy of this
judgment.

35. Compliance report be submitted to
this Court at the earliest. Office is directed
to keep the compliance report on record.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 281
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5718 of 2025

Lalit Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Maha Prasad, Sunil Kumar I

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Kameshwar Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Special Judge erred in refusing to
direct
police
investigation
and
instead
registering the application as a complaint case?

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3), 202(1)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Section 14-A(1) - Criminal Appeal u/s 14-A(1)
of the SC/ST Act, - challenging the impugned
order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act),
whereby the trial court treated the application of
the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for
lodging of FIR against the accused persons as a
complaint case - and dismissed the prayer for
police investigation - plea taken that, the
Magistrate
was
obligated
to
direct
FIR
registration for cognizable offences - court finds
that - A Magistrate or Special Judge has judicial
discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to either
direct
police
investigation
or
treat
the
application as a complaint - and If the
complainant is aware of all facts, parties, and
evidence, and no recovery or police assistance is
required, the court may proceed under Chapter
XV of Cr.P.C. - further, the presence of CCTV
footage does not mandate police investigation if
the court can obtain it during inquiry under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. - held - court, relying on
authoritative judgments, upheld the Magistrate's
discretion to proceed under the complaint
procedure
when
circumstances
do
not
necessitate
police
investigation
-
further,
concluded that, it was not a case which requires
any investigation by the police and it ought to
be registered as a complaint case - court founds
no illegality or impropriety in the impugned
order - consequently, that may require any
interreference through exercise of appellate
jurisdiction of this court - accordingly, appeal is
dismissed. (Para - 15, 16, 17, 18)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 2001 SC 571 - Ram Babu Gupta v. State of
U.P., (2001) 43 ACC 50 (F.B.) - Sukhwasi v.
State of U.P., (2007) 59 ACC 739.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.),
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal complaint case, element of cognizable
offence, Judicial discretion, Police investigation,
refuse to registration of FIR, Res integra, clunky
plea, relevant evidence.

CASE ARISING FROM
Judgment dated 23.09.2024 passed by the
Special Judge (SC/ST)/Additional Session Judge,
Ballia in Criminal Misc. Case No. 130 of 2024 -
Police Station - Kotwali, District - Ballia.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Shri Maha Prasad.
Counsel for Respondent: - Shri Kameshwar
Singh, AGA.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. This criminal appeal under Section
14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in
short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred
by the appellant - Lalit Kumar challenging
the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the
Special Judge (SC/ST Act) / Additional
Session Judge, Ballia in Criminal Misc.
Case No.130 of 2024 (Lalit Kumar Vs.
Kaushal Kumar Singh, Advocate and
others), Police Station Kotwali, District
Ballia whereby the application moved by
the appellant under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
was ordered to be registered as a complaint
case.

2. Heard Sri Maha Prasad, learned
counsel for the appellant, Sri Kameshwar
Singh, learned counsel for the opposite
party nos.2 to 6 as well as the learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire
record.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant that he had moved an
application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
for lodging of the F.I.R. against the accused
persons but the learned trial court by
passing an illegal order committed gross
mistake and ordered the said application to
be treated as complaint case. It is also
submitted that the appellant belongs to the
weaker section of the society and is a
member
of
SC/ST
community.
The
opposite party nos.2 to 6 are also advocate
along with the appellant in the District
Court at Ballia but they are very powerful
and influential persons and always use to
threaten the appellant. On 1.3.2024 at about
12:00 Noon, the appellant saw the opposite
parties making assault upon the librarian
Shivji Singh, who is an employee in
Criminal & Revenue Bar Association,
Ballia and when he himself protested the
same they hurled abuses by caste related
remarks and also made assault upon him by
kicks and fists and in the meanwhile, on
exhortation of opposite party no.2, the
opposite party no.3 kicked him over his
chest and he sustained serious injuries. The
incident was recorded in the CCTV camera.
The matter was reported to the police
station and he was medically examined but
the police subsequently did not lodge the
F.I.R. and when an application was moved
to the senior police officials and other
authorities on 6.3.2024, the S.H.O., P.S.
Kotwali called him and pressurized to
make compromise with the opposite parties
and refused to lodge his F.I.R. Ultimately
an application under section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. alongwith the medical papers, the
copy of the application given to the S.P.,
Ballia and other relevant documents was
moved to the court but the learned court
declined
to
pass
an order
for
the
registration of the F.I.R. The learned
Special Judge completely ignored the fact
that the appellant was not capable of
collecting the evidence of CCTV footage
and other relevant evidence and expressed
its view that since the appellant is fully
acquainted with the opposite parties and no
7 All. Lalit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
283
serious
injuries
were
found
in
the
supplementary medical report, the matter
was not of such kind that required an F.I.R.
to be registered. It is further submitted that
the impugned order has been passed in an
arbitrary manner ignoring the settled legal
principles for the disposal of an application
under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. There is
illegality and perversity in the said order
and the same is liable to be quashed by this
Hon'ble Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party nos. 2 to 6 as well as learned
A.G.A. opposed the appeal.

5. The core issue involved in this
matter is that whether a Special Judge has
power to treat the application under section
156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and secondly
if it is so, whether in the instant case the
Court concerned committed error for not
passing an order to lodge a police case on the
application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. but
passed an order of treating it as a criminal
complaint. As contended by learned counsel
for the appellant, the learned Special Judge
had no power to treat his application under
section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. He
also assailed the impugned order on the
ground that the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)
merely impressed upon the fact that since the
appellant was fully aware of all the facts
relating to the incident and he was also
acquainted with the opposite parties by their
names and address, a Police investigation in
the present case was never necessitated and
passed the impugned order to treat the
application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a
complaint, which was an erroneous view
taken by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST
Act).

6. The Court firstly enters into the
dispute relating to the power of the
Magistrate to register an application under
section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a criminal
complaint. The learned counsel for the
appellant proceeds with the plea that since
the allegations made in the said application
disclosed the commission of a cognizable
offence, the Magistrate was bound to pass
an order directing to the police to register
F.I.R. in this matter.

7. The said dispute has no more Res
integra and on the basis of relevant judicial
pronouncements it can be averred that the
law recognises the power of the Court to
treat an application under section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. as a criminal complaint.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court got an
opportunity to deal with the issue in Suresh
Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh
&
Another,
A.I.R.
2001
Supreme Court 571 and the legal dictum
promulgated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
is extracted here-in-below :

"But a magistrate need not order
any such investigation if he proposes to
take cognizance of the offence. Once he
takes cognizance of the offence he has to
follow the procedure envisaged in Chapter
XV of the Code. A reading of Section 202
(1) of the Code would convince that the
investigation referred to therein is of a
limited nature. The magistrate can direct
such an investigation to be made either by
a police officer or by any other person.
Such investigation is only for helping the
magistrate to decide whether or not there is
sufficient ground for him to proceed
further. This can be discerned from the
culminating words in Section 202 (1) i.e. or
direct an investigation to be made by a
police officer or by such other persons as
he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding
whether or not there is sufficient ground for
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceeding. This is because he has already
taken cognizance of the offence disclosed in
the complaint, and the domain of the case
would thereafter vest with him."

9. Further, a Full Bench of this High
Court in Ram Babu Gupta and another
Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 43
ACC 50 (F.B.) held that when a complaint
containing
elements
of
a
cognizable
offence is received by a Magistrate,
different courses are open to him. He may
with the aid of power conferred by Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C. direct the police to register
a case and investigate in the manner as
provided in Chapter XII or he may treat the
same as complaint and proceed in the
manner contemplated in Chapter XV of the
Code. It was further held that if he adopts
the second mode in terms of Chapter XV,
his decision cannot be faulted with for not
acceding to the request of the complainant
for an investigation by the police.

10. A Division Bench of this Court in
Sukhwasi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2007) 59 ACC 739 also held in specific
terms that a Magistrate can treat an
application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as
a complaint and the Magistrate besides
even
after
taking
congnizance
and
proceeding under Chapter XV of the Code
order investigation even though of a limited
nature.

11. All the three judgments quoted
above are mentioned in the impugned order
passed by the learned Special Judge, Ballia.
The legal position was further clarified in
Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau Vs. State of
Gujarat, (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases
185 wherein the power of the Magistrate to
treat an application under section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. as a complaint has been reiterated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same
echoes in the findings given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and
Another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015
(6) SCC 287.

12. From the above, no doubt remains
that if the Magistrate receives an application
under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. disclosing a
cognizable offence, he is fully empowered to
treat it as a private criminal complaint and an
argument contrary to that is a clunky plea.

13. Another issue to be examined is as
to what type of applications moved under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. may be treated as a
complaint case.

14. The authority judgment on the issue
was passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in Gulab Chand Upadhyaya Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2002 All LJ 1225.
While dealing with such issue, certain
suggestions were given to the Magistrate in
the aforesaid pronouncement. The relevant
portion of the said judgment is extracted as
here-in-below :

"21. The scheme of Cr.P.C. and the
prevailing circumstances require that the
option to direct the registration of the case
and its investigation by the police should be
exercised where some "investigation" is
required, which is of a nature that is not
possible for the private complainant, and
which can only be done by the police upon
whom statute has conferred the powers
essential for investigation, for example

(1) where the full details of the
accused are not known to the complainant
and the same can be determined only as a
result of investigation, or

(2) where recovery of abducted
person or stolen property is required to be
7 All. Lalit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
285
made by conducting raids or searches of
suspected places or persons, or

(3) where for the purpose of
launching a successful prosecution of the
accused evidence is required to be
collected and preserved. To illustrate by
example cases may be visualised where for
production before Court at the trial (a)
sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken
and kept sealed for fixing the place of
incident; or (b) recovery of case property is
to be made and kept sealed; or (c) recovery
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; or
(d) preparation of inquest report; or (e)
witnesses are not known and have to be
found out or discovered through the
process of investigation.

22. But where the complainant is
in possession of the complete details of all
the accused as well as the witnesses who
have to be examined and neither recovery
is needed nor any such material evidence is
required to be collected which can be done
only by the police, no "investigation" would
normally be required and the procedure of
complaint case should be adopted. The
facts of the present case given below serve
as an example. It must be kept in mind that
adding unnecessary cases to the diary of
the police would impair their efficiency in
respect of cases genuinely requiring
investigation. Besides even after taking
cognizance and proceeding under Chapter
XV the Magistrate can still under Section
202(1) Cr. P.C. order investigation, even
though of a limited nature (see para 7 of JT
(2001) 2 (SC) 81 : ((2001) 2 SCC 628 : AIR
2001 SC 571)"

15. If the aforesaid principle of law is
translated into the facts and circumstances
of the instant case, the incident has taken
place in the Court campus in the day time,
when the Court was open. It is pertinent to
note that both the sides the appellant as
well as the respondents no.2 to 6 are
advocates in the same Civil Court at
District Ballia. The proposed accused
persons and the appellant are very well
acquainted with each other. The appellant
is fully aware of the names and addresses
of the proposed accused persons. The
witnesses of the incident are also known to
him and their names have been specifically
mentioned in the application under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C. The contents of the said
application show that no issue of recovery
of any property or other incriminating
article is required to be collected in a police
investigation, hence no evidence has to be
collected by the police and the complainant
is competent enough to adduce relevant
evidence before the Court at his own level.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant
has made a submission that since the
incident has been captured in CCTV
camera installed in the Court campus, the
appellant is not capable of taking the
extracts of the CCTV footage and since in a
police investigation the police may easily
collect the same which is a relevant piece
of evidence against the proposed accused
persons, the matter should have been sent
to the police for investigation after lodging
of an F.I.R. Per contra, the learned State
counsel has made a convincing submission
that the copy of the CCTV footage may be
obtained by the Court itself if it proceeds to
conduct an enquiry under Section 202 (1)
Cr.P.C.
either
itself
or
directs
an
investigation by the police in a complaint
case. I find myself in complete agreement
with what was pleaded by the learned State
counsel.

17. The copies of the medical reports
have been filed by the appellant alongwith
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. and further he has submitted his
caste certificate as well before the Court.
Hence, there appears no need for passing
an order for registration of F.I.R. and
investigation by the police because the
appellant himself is fully aware with the
names and addresses of the accused
persons and he is also having entire
relevant evidence pertaining to the alleged
incident. Hence, the learned Special Judge
applying the correct approach rightly held
that it was not a case which requires any
investigation by the police and it ought to
be registered as a complaint case. The
abovementioned issue is decided in the
aforesaid manner.

18. Hence, from the above discussion
and relying upon the pronouncements made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this
Court as well, I do not find any illegality or
impropriety in the impugned order that may
require any interference through exercise of
appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The
correctness of the impugned order is not
liable to be questioned. The learned
Magistrate has committed no mistake in
passing the order to treat the application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by
the appellant as a criminal complaint. The
appeal lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

19.
The
appeal
is
accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 286
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal No. 285 of 2025
&
First Appeal No. 249 of 2025

Dr. Prakhar Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Hemant Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
Piyush
Shukla,
Suresh
Kumar
Gupta,
Vashishtha Narayan Tripathi

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to interim custody/visitation
rights passed by Family Court u/s 12 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, directing father to
have visitation rights and video conferencing
with children, is appealable u/s 19 of Family
Courts Act, and if so, whether appeals filed by
father and mother seeking exclusive custody of
children should be allowed or dismissed in light
of subsequent modifications of interim custody
by Family Court and pendency of main petition
for guardianship and permanent custody.

Head Notes
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - s. 12(1)
- Family Courts Act , 1984 - s. 19 - Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX -
Husband and wife, filed cross-appeals
against Family Court's order passed u/s
12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
granting father visitation rights thrice a
month and video contact with minor
children - Husband and wife sought
exclusive custody - During pendency,
Family Court modified interim custody
orders several times and both parties also
approached Supreme Court through SLPs -
High Court considered whether such
interlocutory order was appealable u/s 19
of Family Courts Act - Justification:

Held: Order of interim custody, was modified by
Family Court by order dated 30.05.2025 on