Disposed¶16

Anees Haidar @ Massu v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2025NA528/42850/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS application, Allahabad High Court, decided 04.11.2025 by Nand Prabha Shukla, J.; applicant's Section 173(4) BNSS application (Misc. Case No. 664 of 2024, Jaunpur) treated as complaint case; criminal revision No. 48 of 2025 rejected by Additional Sessions Judge; High Court declined to set aside impugned orders and directed investigation under Section 225(1) BNSS; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with a direction to the court concerned to make necessary investigation as mandated under Section 225(1) BNSS; the prayer to set aside the impugned orders was not allowed. ¶16

Anees Haidar @ Massu vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42850 of 2025

¶3

Anees Haidar @ Massu

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The instant application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-2, District-Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 48 of 2025 (Anees Haidar @ Massu v. State of U.P. and others) as well as impugned order dated 28.01.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) New Court 10th/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in Misc. Case No. 664 of 2024 (Anees Haidar v. Saif Ali Khan and others) under Section 173(4) BNSS, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Jaunpur.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant moved an application under Section 173(4) BNSS which was ordered to be treated as a complaint case. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred a criminal revision No. 48 of 2025 which has also been rejected vide order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Jaunpur.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that Section 225(1) BNSS empowers the Magistrate to make an enquiry or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid facts, the application moved by the applicant under Section 173(4) BNSS has already been treated as a complaint case,

¶13

NA528 No. 42850 of 2025

¶14

¶15

accordingly, in the interest of justice, it is hereby directed to the court concerned to make necessary investigation as mandated under Section 225(1) BNSS.

¶16

With the aforesaid direction, the instant application is disposed of.

¶17

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶18

November 4, 2025

¶19

Aditya Tripathi

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anees Haidar @ Massu v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anees Haidar @ Massu v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramlal Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Meera Devi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sweta Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Varshney and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another