# Smt. Raveena Meena v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 626
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-02
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 5944 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-raveena-meena-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53427
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

- Section 173 (4)-Application U/S 173(4)
BNSS moved- impugned order-directed to
proceed with the application as a complaint
case-Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance
and postpones issuance of process are cases
where the Magistrate has yet to determine
"existence of sufficient ground to proceed- on a
prima facie reading of the complaint -clearly
indicate the need for police investigation-the
discretion granted in Section 156(3) can only be
read as it being the Magistrate's duty to order
the police to investigate-if investigation in the
matter is not required then in that eventuality,
the
Magistrate/Court
of
competent
of
jurisdiction can treat the application under
Section 173(4) BNSS as a 'complaint case'-no
interference in impugned order.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
60. Consequently, the petition is
dismissed and costs are made easy.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 626
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 5944 of 2025

Smt. Raveena Meena ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Vinay Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 173 (4)-Application U/S 173(4)
BNSS moved- impugned order-directed to
proceed with the application as a complaint
case-Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance
and postpones issuance of process are cases
where the Magistrate has yet to determine
"existence of sufficient ground to proceed- on a
prima facie reading of the complaint -clearly
indicate the need for police investigation-the
discretion granted in Section 156(3) can only be
read as it being the Magistrate's duty to order
the police to investigate-if investigation in the
matter is not required then in that eventuality,
the
Magistrate/Court
of
competent
of
jurisdiction can treat the application under
Section 173(4) BNSS as a 'complaint case'-no
interference in impugned order.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. All Institute of Medical Sciences Employees
Union Vs U.O.I. 1996 (4) Crimes 189 (Supreme
Court)
2. Hari Singh Vs St. of U.P 2006 Criminal Law
Journal 3283

3. Lalita Kumari Vs Government of U.P. & ors.,
2014 (2) SCC 1

4. Anil Kumar Vs Vs M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC
705

5. Vishwanath Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2020) ILR 2
All 889

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned
counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Singh
Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. This application U/S 528 BNSS has
been filed by the applicant to quash the
impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in
Misc. Case No. 3148 of 2024 (Smt.
Raveena Meena Vs. Murarilal Meena and
another), under Section 173 (4) of BNSS,
2023, Police Station Tundla, District
Firozabad, pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, by which
the application under Section 173(4) BNSS
filed by the applicant has been treated as
complaint case.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on
06.12.2024 at about 4 p.m., the applicant
was going to the market for some work,
when Murarilal Meena and Subah Singh
Meena met her in the market, made
obscene gestures to her and passed dirty
comments towards her. The applicant came
home, told the whole incident to her
husband and other family members. When
her husband went to complain to the
accused persons, those people abused him
and assaulted him. Murarilal caught hold of
the applicant from behind and did obscene
5 All. Smt. Raveena Meena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
627
acts with her. Hearing their screams, some
passersby came and saved them. The
accused people threatened her that they will
falsely implicate her husband in a false case
and also threatened them to kill. Applicant's
husband complained about the incident to
the higher officials of his department but
nothing has been done. On 07.12.2024, the
applicant also went to the police station to
complain about the incident but no action
was taken.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that an application was filed by the
applicant with the allegation that on
06.12.2024 at about 4 P.M. while she was
going to the Market, Murarilal Meena and
Subah Singh Meena have made dirty
gestures and flirted with her. The applicant
told the incident to her husband. When her
husband asked Murarilal Meena and Subah
Singh Meena about the incident, they
abused and assaulted him. Therefore, an
application was given to the police
authorities on 07.12.2024 for lodging of the
F.I.R. However, when nothing was done,
the present application U/S 173(4) BNSS
was moved. He further submits that a
perusal of the application filed by the
applicant clearly discloses the commission
of a cognizance offence. He, therefore,
submits that once the application filed by
the applicant under Section 156(3) BNSS
disclosed the commission of a cognizable
offence, the Magistrate has erred in law in
directing to proceed with the application as
a complaint case. The Learned counsel for
the
applicant
has
contended
with
vehemence that the learned Magistrate has
passed the impugned order in a mechanical
manner without application of judicial
mind.

5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has
supported the impugned orders and pointed
out that the grievance of the applicant has not
gone unattended by the court below. The
Magistrate after taking into consideration the
entire gamut of the facts and circumstances of
the case has rightly concluded to treat the
application filed by the applicant under
Section 173 (4) BNSS as a complaint case.
The applicant shall still have an opportunity
to prove his case before the court below.

6. Considered the rival submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties
and gone through the records of the present
application.

7. Section 173(4) BNSS reads as
follows:-

"173
(4)
BNSS
Any
person
aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an
officer in charge of a police station to record
the information referred to in sub-section (1),
may send the substance of such information,
in writing and by post, to the Superintendent
of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such
information discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, shall either investigate
the case himself or direct an investigation to
be made by any police officer subordinate to
him, in the manner provided by this Sanhita,
and such officer shall have all the powers of
an officer in charge of the police station in
relation to that offence failing which such
aggrieved person may make an application to
the Magistrate."

8. In the case of All Institute of
Medical Sciences Employees Union Vs.
Union of India reported in 1996 (4) Crimes
189 (Supreme Court), the Apex Court has
held Para 4:-

"4. When the information is laid
with the police but no action in that behalf
was taken, the complainant is given power
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 190 Cr.P.C. read with
Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. to lay the
complaint before the Magistrate having
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
offence and the Magistrate is required to
inquire into the complaint as provided in
Chapter XV of the Code. In case the
Magistrate after recording evidence finds a
prima facie case, instead of issuing process
to the accused, he is empowered to direct
the concerned police to investigate into the
offence under Chapter XII of the Code and
to submit a report. If he finds that the
complaint does not disclose any offence to
take further action, he is empowered to
dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of
the Code. In case he finds that the
complaint/ evidence recorded prima facie
discloses offence, he is empowered to take
cognisance of the offence and would issue
process to the accused."

9. Similarly, the Apex Court has again
in the case of Hari Singh Vs. State of U.P
reported in 2006 Criminal Law Journal
3283 held that para 4:-

"4. When the information is laid
with the police, but no action in that behalf
is taken, the complainant can under Section
190 read with Section 200 of the Code lay
the complaint before the Magistrate having
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
offence and the Magistrate is required to
enquire into the complaint as provided in
Chapter XV of the Code. In case the
Magistrate after recording evidence finds a
prima facie case, instead of issuing process
to the accused, he is empowered to direct
the police concerned to investigate into
offence under Chapter XII of the Code and
to submit a report. If he finds that the
complaint does not disclose any offence to
take further action, he is empowered to
dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of
the Code. In case he finds that the
complaint/evidence recorded prima facie
discloses an offence, he is empowered to
take cognizance of the offence and would
issue process to the accused. These aspects
have been highlighted by this Court in All
India
Institute
of
Medical
Sciences
Employees'
Union
(Reg)
through
its
President v. Union of India and Ors.
MANU/SC/1769/1996 : (1996)115CC582 .
It was specifically observed that a writ
petition in such cases is not to be
entertained. The above position was again
highlighted
recently
in
Gangadhar
Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra
MANU/SC/0830/2004
: 2004CriLJ4623
and in Minu Kumari and Ant v. State of
Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/8098/2006:
2006CriLJ2468."

10. in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government
of U.P. and others reported in 2014 (2)
SCC 1, specifically in paragraph 111, the
Apex Court has observed as follows:-

"111) In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we hold:

"i)
Registration
of
FIR
is
mandatory under Section 154 of the Code,
if the information discloses commission of
a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

ii) If the information received
does not disclose a cognizable offence but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted only
to ascertain whether cognizable offence is
disclosed or not.

iii) If the inquiry discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, the
FIR must be registered. In cases where
preliminary inquiry ends in closing the
5 All. Smt. Raveena Meena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
629
complaint, a copy of the entry of such
closure must be supplied to the first
informant forthwith and not later than one
week. It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding
further.

iv) The police officer cannot
avoid his duty of registering offence if
cognizable offence is disclosed. Action
must be taken against erring officers who
do not register the FIR if information
received by him discloses a cognizable
offence

v) The scope of preliminary
inquiry is not to verify the veracity or
otherwise of the information received but
only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.

vi) As to what type and in which
cases
preliminary
inquiry
is
to
be
conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category
of cases in which preliminary inquiry may
be made are as under:

a) Matrimonial disputes/ family
disputes

b) Commercial offences

c) Medical negligence cases

d) Corruption cases

e) Cases where there is abnormal
delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution,
for example, over 3 months delay in reporting
the matter without satisfactorily explaining the
reasons for delay.

The
aforesaid
are
only
illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary
inquiry.

vii)
While
ensuring
and
protecting the rights of the accused and the
complainant, a preliminary inquiry should
be made time bound and in any case it
should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such
delay and the causes of it must be reflected
in the General Diary entry.

viii)
Since
the
General
Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the
record of all information received in a
police
station,
we
direct
that
all
information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of FIR or
leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily
and meticulously reflected in the said Diary
and the decision to conduct a preliminary
inquiry
must
also
be
reflected,
as
mentioned above."

11. It is clear that the direction under
Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after
application of mind by the Magistrate. When
the Magistrate does not take cognizance and
does not find it necessary to postpone the
issuance of process and finds a case made
out to proceed forthwith, direction under the
said provision is issued. In other words,
where
on
account
of
credibility
of
information available, or weighing the
interest of justice it is considered appropriate
to straightaway direct investigation, such a
direction is issued.

12. The cases where Magistrate takes
cognizance and postpones issuance of
process are cases where the Magistrate has
yet to determine "existence of sufficient
ground to proceed". Category of cases
falling under para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari
v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 may fall
under Section 202.
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. Subject to these broad guidelines
available from the scheme of the Code,
exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is
guided by interest of justice from case to
case.

14. In Anil Kumar Vs. Vs. M.K.
Aiyappa reported in (2013) 10 SCC 705 It
has been held that direction of Magistrate
for investigation under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. cannot be given mechanically. In
the aforesaid case, it has been observed as
follows:-

"11. "The scope of Section 156(3)
CrPC came up for consideration before
this Court in several cases. This Court in
Maksud Saiyed case [Maksud Saiyed v.
State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 :
(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] examined the
requirement of the application of mind by the
Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction
under Section 156(3) and held that where
jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed
in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200
CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his
mind,
in
such
a
case,
the
Special
Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter
under Section 156(3) against a public servant
without
a
valid
sanction
order.
The
application of mind by the Magistrate should
be reflected in the order. The mere statement
that he has gone through the complaint,
documents and heard the complainant, as
such, as reflected in the order, will not be
sufficient. After going through the complaint,
documents and hearing the complainant,
what weighed with the Magistrate to order
investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC,
should be reflected in the order, though a
detailed expression of his views is neither
required nor warranted."

15. After considering the relevant
provisions
of
Cr.P.C.
and
various
pronouncement, this Court in the case of
Vishwanath Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Ors,
reported in (2020) ILR 2 All 889 has held
as follows:-

"55. Thus, in the whole scheme of
the Code of Criminal Procedure as
clarified in the pronouncements of the Apex
Court ranging from 1951 to 2019, it is
evident that if a person has a grievance
that his F.I.R. has not been registered by
the police, his first remedy is to approach
the Superintendent of Police under Section
154(3), Cr.P.C. or other police officer
referred to in Section 36, Cr.P.C. If his
grievances still persist, then he can
approach a Magistrate under Section
156(3), Cr.P.C. He has a further remedy of
filing a criminal complaint under Section
200, Cr.P.C. On receipt of the complaint,
however, several courses are open to the
Magistrate:

(i) He may take cognizance of the
offence at once and proceed to record
statements of the complaints and the
witnesses present under Section 200, and
proceed under Chapter XV and Chapter
XVI, accordingly.

(ii) If, he thinks fit, he may
postpone the issue of process and either
inquire into the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by the police
officer or such other process as he may
thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding
whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding. He may then issue process if in
his opinion there is sufficient ground of
proceeding; or dismiss the complaint if
there
is
no
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding.

(iii) Yet another course open to
the Magistrate is that instead of taking
5 All. Smt. Raveena Meena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
631
cognizance of the offence and following the
procedure laid down under Section 200 or
Section 202, he may order investigation to
be made by the police under Section
156(3).

(iv) On receiving the police
report, the Magistrate may take cognizance
of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) and
issue process straightway to the accused.
The Magistrate may exercise his power in
this behalf irrespective of the view
expressed by the police in their report
whether an offence has been made out or
not. This is because the Magistrate is not
bound by the opinion of the police officer
as to whether an offence has been made out
or not.

56. Thus, the above discussion
pertaining to the power of the Magistrate
under Section 156(3) in Chapter XII read
with Section 190 in Chapter XIV of the
Code leaves no room for doubt that there is
nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
which curtails or puts any embargo on the
power of the Magistrate to make an
"inquiry" as defined under Section 2(g) of
the Code or to order for "investigation"
defined under Section 2(h) of the Code, in
dealing with the application under Section
156(3), Cr.P.C. i.e., in exercise of the
power conferred upon it under Chapter XII
or Chapter XIV of the Code to satisfy itself
about the veracity of the allegations of
commission of a criminal offence made
therein.

57. In its discretionary power, it
is open for the Magistrate to direct the
police to register a criminal case under
Section
154,
Cr.P.C.
and
conduct
investigation. At the same time, it is open
for the Magistrate, where the facts of the
case and the ends of justice so demand, to
take cognizance of the matter by treating it
as a complaint and proceed for the
"inquiry" under Sections 200 and 202,
Cr.P.C.

58. It cannot be said nor it could
be demonstrated that in each case, without
application of its independent mind, the
Magistrate shall issue simply direction "to
register and investigate" i.e., to lodge a
first information report on an application
filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. The
power to conduct a preliminary inquiry
into the report of commission of criminal
offence(s), conferred on the Magistrate
within the scheme of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has not been curtailed by any of
the observations made by the Apex Court in
the
case
of
Lalita
Kumari,
MANU/SC/1166/2013MANU/SC/1166/201
3 : 2014(2) SCC 1.

59. However, it is pertinent to
note that while exercising its discretionary
power under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., the
Magistrate
like
any
other
court
of
discretionary jurisdiction is to act fairly
and consciously and ensure that the
discretion conferred upon it is exercised
within the limits of judicial discretion. The
entire emphasis is to act in an unbiased
and just manner, strictly in accordance
with law, to find but the truth of the case
which shall come before it.

60. It is a Magistrate who is the
competent authority to take cognizance of
an offence and it is his duty to decide
whether on the basis of the record and
documents produced, an offence is made
out or not and if made out, what course of
law should be adopted. Emphasis is laid to
the statement in Vinubhai (supra), wherein
it is stated that "it is the judicial conscience
of the Magistrate which has to be satisfied
632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with reference to the record and the
documents placed before him by the
investigating agency, in coming to an
appropriate conclusion in consonance with
the principles of law." It would not be out
of place to note para '17' of the report in
Vinubhai, at this stage:

"17. It is clear that a fair trial
must kick off only after an investigation is
itself fair and just. The ultimate aim of all
investigation and inquiry, whether by the
police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure
that those who have actually committed a
crime are correctly booked, and those who
have not/are not arraigned to stand trial
That this is the minimal procedural
requirement
that
is
the
fundamental
requirement
of
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India cannot be doubted. It
is the hovering omnipresence of Article 21
over the Cr.P.C. that must needs inform the
interpretation of all the provisions of the
Cr.P.C., so as to ensure that Article 21 is
followed both in letter and in spirit."
 (Emphasis added)

61. Applying the above legal
principles, in the facts of the present case,
this Court finds that the application under
Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was filed after a
period of two months of the alleged
incident and it was noted by the court
concerned that nothing could be traced in
favour of the prosecution by medical
examination etc. In the circumstances
before it, the court deemed it fair, just and
proper to search the evidence(s) which
is/are well known to the applicant and in
his possession so as to find out the truth of
the allegations in the application.

62. Having perused the contents
of the application and the order of the
court below, it cannot be said that the court
concerned has committed illegally in
exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction
under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. or it has
exceeded in its jurisdiction in any manner
or has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it
in law. It cannot be said also that any
material injustice has been caused to the
applicant on account of the decision of the
court below to treat the application under
Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. as a complaint for
the purpose of deciding whether or not
there is sufficient ground for proceeding,
rather than directing the police to register
an F.I.R. and investigate under Section 154
of the Code."

16. From all discussions, it can be said
that in such cases, where not only does the
Magistrate find the commission of a
cognizable offence alleged on a prima facie
reading of the complaint but also such facts
are brought to the Magistrate's notice which
clearly indicate the need for police
investigation, the discretion granted in
Section 156(3) can only be read as it being
the Magistrate's duty to order the police to
investigate. In cases such wherein, there is
alleged to be documentary or other
evidence in the physical possession of the
accused or other individuals which the
police would be best placed to investigate
and retrieve using its powers under the
CrPC, the matter ought to be sent to the
police for investigation.

17. It is true that the use of the word
"may" implies that the Magistrate has
discretion in directing the police to
investigate or proceeding with the case as a
complaint case. But this discretion cannot
be exercised arbitrarily and must be guided
by judicial reasoning.

18. This Court is of the view that if
investigation in the matter is not required
5 All. Imran Khan @ Ashok Ratna Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
633
then
in
that
eventuality,
the
Magistrate/Court
of
competent
of
jurisdiction can treat the application under
Section 173(4) BNSS as a 'complaint case'.

19. In light of the above facts and
above proposition of law, this Court is of
the view that there is no illegality or
irregularity in the order impugned and after
collecting the report from the police station
concerned or the report otherwise the
Magistrate is of the view that no
investigation from the Police is required
and he has rightly directed the present case
to be treated as complaint case.

20. In light of above facts, this Court
is of the view that no interference is
required in the orders impugned. The
present
application
lacks
merit
and
deserves to be dismissed.

21. It is accordingly dismissed.

22. The Court would like to appreciate
the hard work put in by Ms. Shreya Shukla,
Research
Associate,
who
has
drawn
attention to detail and the same shown in
her work of providing legal assistance in
this matter.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 633
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 11862 of 2025

Imran Khan @ Ashok Ratna ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed, Sharique Ahmed

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Manish Kumar Tripathi, G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973- Section 161 & 164 -St.ment of
opposite party no.2 recorded u/s 161 and 164
Cr.P.C.- specific allegation of cruelty and also the
harassment against the husband for demand of
dowry-as well as committing unnatural carnal
sex upon his wife against her wishes-to attract
the offence u/s 498A IP- specific demand of
dowry is not necessary-cruelty committed by the
husband is itself sufficient to attract the
ingredients
of
Section-498A
IPC-from
the
perusal of the St.ments of Section 161 Cr.P.C.
and 164 Cr.P.C., offence mentioned in charge
sheet are made out-no ground for quashing.

Application rejected. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs St.
of Chhattisgarh and Others in Criminal Appeal
No. 2588 of 2024

2. Manish Sahu Vs The St. of M.P. in Misc.
Criminal Case No.8388 of 2023

3. Shashank Harsh Vs St. of M.P., Station
House Officer in Misc. Criminal Case No.40044
of 2023

4. Navtej Singh Johar Vs U.O.I. through
Secretary Ministry of Law & Justice reported in
2018 (10) SCC 1

5. St. of H.P. Vs Rajesh Kumar in Criminal
Appeal No. 2097 of 2014

6. Khanu Vs Emperor 1924 SCC OnLine Sind JC
49

7. Khandu Vs Emperor reported in 1933 SCC
Online Lah 601

8. Aluri Venkata Ramana Vs Aluri Thirupathi Rao
& ors., SLP (Criminal) No.9243 of 2024