Anand Singh @ Viccky and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Anand Singh @ Viccky and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Magistrate rightly exercised his power in dealing with the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Officer by treating the protest petition as a complaint. +1 more

Court's answer

When a Final Report is submitted by the Investigating Officer, the Magistrate has four options: (i) take cognizance and summon the accused if a prima facie case is made out from the material on record; (ii) direct further investigation; (iii) accept the Final Report; or (iv) if the protest petition has substance, treat it as a complaint after rejecting the Final Report.

Ratio / Principle

Since the Magistrate treated the protest petition as a complaint, the appellants have ample opportunity to have their say before the trial court under Section 223(1) of the BNSS, and no prejudice is caused to them.

Key takeaways

The Magistrate rightly exercised his power while dealing with the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Officer in treating the protest petition as a complaint.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Madan Pal Singh, J.) dismissed a criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the order dated 06.10.2025 of the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Fatehpur, whereby the trial court rejected Final Report No. 529 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Viccky Singh & Ors), arising out of Case Crime No. 27 of 2024 under Sections 325, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act, and treated the protest petition as a complaint case. Held: on submission of a Final Report the Magistrate has four options, including treating a substantive protest petition as a complaint after rejecting the Final Report; since the Magistrate adopted that course, the appellants have ample opportunity to be heard before the trial court under Section 223(1) of the BNSS and no prejudice is caused to them; the Magistrate rightly exercised his power. Appeal dismissed as lacking merit.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2839 of 2026

Anand Singh @ Viccky And 5 Others

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Kunwar Mayank Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Ram Lakhan Deobanshi, G.A.

Court No. - 51

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Heard Sri Kunwar Mayank Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Lakhan Deobanshi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

By means of the present criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been filed against the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Fatehpur, whereby the trial court has rejected the Final Report No. 529 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Viccky Singh & Ors) arising out of Case Crime No. 27 of 2024 under Sections, 325, 323, 354, 504 and 506 IPC and section 3(1)(da) & 3 (1) (dha) of the SC/ST Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while treating the protest petition as a complaint case, the trial court has not recorded any finding with regard to the rejection of Final Report.

On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the appellants have no locus, as the FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2. It was further submitted that since a Final Report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer, the appellants, if aggrieved, have ample opportunity to raise their objections before the trial court under Section 223(1) of the BNSS..

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and the learned AGA for the State, and perused the

CRLA No. 2839 of 2026

2

record. It is well settled that when a Final Report is submitted by the Investigating Officer, the Magistrate has four options: (i) to take cognizance and summon the accused if a prima facie case is made out from the material available on record; (ii) to direct further investigation; (iii) to accept the Final Report; or (iv) if the protest petition has substance, to treat it as a complaint after rejecting the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Officer.

Moreover, since the Magistrate has treated the protest petition as a complaint, the appellants have ample opportunity to have say before the trial court under Section 223(1) of the BNSS, and no prejudice is caused to them. Therefore, the Magistrate has rightly exercised his power while dealing with the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Officer in treating the protest petition as a complaint.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal lacks merit and is dismissed..

April 20, 2026 Akbar

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad