# Parveen Bano Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 834
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 629 of 2024
- **Bench:** Chawan Prakash
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/parveen-bano-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54012
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Accordingly, the learned trial court rightly passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2025,
summoning the accused/revisionist Jai Nath Prajapati. There is no illegality or irregularity in the
impugned order dated 12.11.2025.

26. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 834
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 629 of 2024

Parveen Bano ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the learned Magistrate committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in exercising
discretion by declining to pass an order for registration of F.I.R. u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and instead directing that
the application be registered and proceeded with as a complaint case.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 156(3), 200 - Registration of FIR - Plea of -
Cognizable offences - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope of - According to the facts of the case,
on 17.09.2023 when the revisionist was cleaning the back side of the house, the opposite
party nos. 2 to 5 came there and due to old enmity they started abusing her - On being
stopped by her, they started beating her by kicks and fists and when her daughter came to
rescue her, they took her daughter with intention to commit illegal act - Further, an
application was given by revisionist to the police for registration of F.I.R. and a copy of the
same was also sent to the S.P. but no report was registered - Thereafter, revisionist had
approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge alleging specific acts
constituting criminal offences and prayed for a direction to the police authorities to
register and investigate the matter, however, upon consideration of the averments made
in the application as filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the material placed on record, the
Magistrate exercised judicial discretion and directed that the application be registered as a
complaint case, to be proceeded with in accordance with law - Aggrieved by the said order
declining to order registration of the F.I.R. and opting to treat the application as a
complaint case, the revisionist filed the instant criminal revision before the High Court. (E11)

Held: In the instant case, the learned Magistrate after perusal of the fact of case declined to pass an
order u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of F.I.R. but registered the said application as complaint case
and registered the case for recording statement of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. - The learned
Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order because it is in discretion of
the learned Magistrate to register any application filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint case - Hence,
the criminal revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. [Para 9]
1 All. Parveen Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
835
Case Law Cited
Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1; Ram Babu and others
v. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50 - referred to

Sukhwasi v. State of U.P. 2007 (59) ACC 739; Smt. Mausam v. State of U.P. and others 2007 (7) ALJ 221
- followed

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Criminal Revision; Application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.; Seeking direction for registration of F.I.R.; Cognizable
offence; Land partition; Old enmity; Judicial discretion; Registered as complaint case; Statements recorded
u/ss. 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; Investigation by police; Prima facie case; Illegality; Criminal Revision dismissed;
Order affirmed.

Case Arising From
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Revision No. - 629 of 2024

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Basti in Criminal Misc. Case No. 425 of 2023.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Revisionist:
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava

Adv. for the Opposite Party:
Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chawan Prakash, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for
the State and Sri Firdos Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari, learned
counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Basti in Criminal Misc. Case
No. 425 of 2023, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Parveen Bano Vs. Ajeej and others) whereby the
application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as complaint case.

3. The brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by
the informant Parveen Bano for registration of the F.I.R. but the said application was treated as
complaint case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Basti vide
order dated 30.11.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 are
family members of the revisionist. On 17.09.2023 at about 9.45 A.M. when the revisionist was
cleaning the back side of the house, the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 came there and due to old enmity
they started abusing her. On being stopped by her, they started beating her by kicks and fists and
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
when her daughter came to rescue her, they took her daughter with intention to commit illegal act
and her clothes were torn. Thereafter they entered into house of the revisionist and started breaking
articles and Rs.1500/- kept in Almirah were also taken away. An application was given to the
police for registration of the F.I.R. and a copy of the same was also sent to the S.P. Basti but no
report was registered by the police. Thereafter an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was
moved by the revisionist before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti but the learned
Magistrate instead of passing the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the case,
has registered the application as complaint case. It is further submitted that the revisionist Parveen
Bano and her daughter Nagma were medically examined. It is next submitted that the learned
Magistrate has committed an illegality in passing the impugned order and in view of the settled
principles of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, a prima facie case is made out against the
accused persons and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and learned A.G.A. opposed
the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the present
application has been filed due to old family dispute about land partition. There is old rivalry
between the parties and compromise has been entered many times and proceedings under Section
107/116 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the revisionist. A case No. 163 of 2019 (Karam Husain and
others Vs. Ram Paltan and others) is also pending. The medical papers filed by the revisionist
regarding injuries of Nagma are forged and fabricated. In fact, they have not received any injury
due to the said incident. The learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the
impugned order. The learned Magistrate is not bound to pass an order for registration of the F.I.R.
and its investigation by police on each and every application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the
said application could be registered as complaint case.

6. The main question of the learned counsel for the revisionist is as to whether the Magistrate
is bound to pass order for registration of the F.I.R. and its investigation by the police on each and
every application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. provides that any
Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr.P.C. may pass order for registration of the F.I.R. and
its investigation of a cognizable offence. Learned counsel for the revisionist mainly contended that
a Magistrate was bound to pass an order for registration of the F.I.R. and its investigation by the
police on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as cognizable offence of serious nature
requiring investigation is made out on the basis of averments made in that application. The
contention of the learned counsel for the State and opposite party nos. 2 to 5 is that if the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. contains the allegations of commission of cognizable
offence, then the Magistrate is always under obligation to direct registration of the F.I.R. and its
investigation.

7. The issue that the Magistrate is bound to pass an order for registration of the F.I.R. and its
investigation by the police on each and every application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. containing
allegations of a commission of cognizable offence is not 'res integra'. Now, as this controversy has
been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. 2007 (59)
ACC 739. In the case of Smt. Mausam Vs. State of U.P. and others 2007 (7) ALJ 221 the single
judges of this Court has taken a view that if an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses
1 All. Ashok Singh @ Kali Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
837
the commission of cognizable offence then the obligation of the Magistrate is to direct the
registration of the F.I.R. on the basis of that application. This Court agreeing this view, following
question was referred to the larger Bench in the case of Sukhwasi (supra) "whether a Magistrate is
bound to pass an order on each and every application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. containing the
allegations of commission of a cognizable offence for registration of the F.I.R. and its investigation
by the police even if those allegations, prima facie, do not appear to be genuine and do not appeal
to reason, or he can exercise judicial discretion in the matter and can pass order for treating it as
'complaint' or to reject it in suitable cases".

8. After having considered the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Babu and
others Vs. State of U.P. 2001 (43) ACC 50 and many other cases, the Division Bench in the case
of Sukhwasi (supra) has answered in paragraph 23 of the case as under:-

"The reference is, therefore, answered in the manner that it is not incumbent upon a
Magistrate to allow an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal
mandate. He may or may not allow the application in his discretion. The second leg of the
reference is also answered in the manner that the Magistrate has a discretion to treat an application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint."

9. In the present case, the learned Magistrate after perusal of the fact of this case declined to
pass an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the F.I.R. but registered the said
application as complaint case and registered the case for recording statement of the complainant
under Section under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in
passing the impugned order because it is in discretion of the learned Magistrate to register any
application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint case. Hence, the revision lacks merits
and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 837
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1352 of 2024

Ashok Singh @ Kali Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the material collected during investigation including the alleged suicide note, the
statements of witnesses, and the F.S.L. report, prima facie disclosed the essential ingredients of "abetment of
suicide" within the meaning of ss. 306 and 107 I.P.C., thereby justifying the continuation of criminal
proceedings or whether in the absence of specific instigation, intentional aid, or active participation