Disposed¶27

Shabana Parveen v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2026CRLR/1262/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.173(4) BNSS application for FIR registration treated as complaint case; order set aside; fresh decision directed; landlord-tenant dispute; alleged breaking of lock and looting of marriage goods on night of 26.10.2025; BNS Sections 305, 331(2), 331(4) corresponding to IPC Sections 380, 447, 457; CRLR No. 1262 of 2026; Allahabad High Court; Abdul Shahid, J.; decided February 26, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.01.2026 set aside; trial court directed to decide the application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. afresh, in accordance with law. ¶27

Shabana Parveen vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 12.01.2026 set aside; trial court directed to decide the application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. afresh, in accordance with law.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 treating the revisionist's application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. for registration of an F.I.R. as a complaint case, instead of directing investigation and registration of an F.I.R., is illegal and improper.

¶11

Court's answer

The learned trial court passed a cursory order without due application of judicial mind and without assigning adequate reasons, and recorded no detailed findings before registering the application as a complaint case.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie, the complainant's averments regarding tenancy for about 33 years, the room being locked at the time of the alleged incident, and her residing elsewhere required proper consideration before the application could be treated as a complaint case.

¶24

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 12.01.2026 is set aside and the trial court is directed to decide the application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. afresh, in accordance with law.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid, J.) against order dated 12.01.2026 of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Muzaffarnagar, whereby the revisionist's application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. seeking registration of an F.I.R. (alleging offences under Sections 305, 331(2) and 331(4) of the B.N.S., corresponding to Sections 380, 447 and 457 I.P.C., arising out of a landlord-tenant dispute over premises allegedly tenanted for about 33 years) was treated as a complaint case. Held: the trial court passed a cursory order without due application of judicial mind and without assigning adequate reasons, recording no detailed findings; the prima facie averments regarding the long tenancy, the room being locked at the time of the incident, and the complainant's residence elsewhere required proper consideration. Impugned order set aside; trial court directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law. Criminal revision disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1262 of 2026

Shabana Parveen

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶6

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Asheesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶8

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 12.01.2026, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Muzaffarnagar, whereby the application moved by the revisionist under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. for registration of an F.I.R. has been treated as a complaint case, is illegal and improper.

¶11

It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 has been passed without proper application of judicial mind, and the application of the revisionist has been registered as a complaint case, whereas the matter requires investigation and an F.I.R. ought to have been directed to be registered.

¶12

On perusal of the complaint, it transpires that the complaint has been filed by Shabana Parveen (revisionist) against (1) Akil Ahmad, (2) Hashir, (3) Asma, (4) Rozi, and three others. The application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. has been filed under Sections 305, 331(2), and 331(4) of the B.N.S. (corresponding to Sections 380, 447, and 457 I.P.C.).

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant/revisionist that the father of the revisionist, namely Shamshad, has been in tenancy of the said premises since the time of her grandfather, i.e., for about 33 years. The tenanted premises are allegedly sought to be taken into possession by the house owner, Akil Ahmad, with the help of certain miscreants. Due to the illness of her father, the complainant was not able to reside in the said house.

¶14

CRLR No. 1262 of 2026

¶15

¶16

The opposite parties/house owner allegedly took advantage of this situation, and in the night of 26.10.2025, Akil Ahmad, along with his son, wife, daughter, and several other persons, broke open the lock of the complainant's room.

¶17

It is alleged that they looted all the goods kept for the marriage of the complainant's two sisters, including three large iron trunks, a single bed, a grain tank, approximately 25 pieces of clothes worth about Rs. 1,50,000/-, brass and copper utensils (51 each) valued at about Rs. 1,25,000/-, two dinner crockery sets, several suits for ladies and gents, three dozen bed sheets, other crockery items, two silver sets, two old coolers, two fans, one refrigerator, and other domestic articles. It is further alleged that they threatened the complainant's family.

¶18

On 28.10.2025, upon being informed by residents of the locality (Mohalla), the complainant came to know about the incident. The alleged act was stated to have been witnessed by Amiruddin, son of Salimuddin, and Sazid, son of Kasim. Immediately after receiving the information on 28.10.2025, an intimation was given on helpline No. 112, and written complaints were also submitted to the police authorities and to the Chief Minister.

¶19

Prima facie, it appears that there is a dispute between the landlord and tenant. It is highly improbable that all the family members, who are the house owners, would break open a room which has allegedly been in tenancy for more than 33 years and was locked at the time of the alleged incident, especially when the complainant was not residing there. It manifestly appears that the complainant was not residing at the said place. In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears improbable that such a large quantity of goods would be kept in a single locked room where the complainant was not residing, particularly when the room is alleged to be under tenancy and the opposite parties are the owners of the house, namely the husband, wife, son, and daughter.

¶20

The learned trial court has passed the impugned order on the ground that all the facts are within the knowledge of the complainant and that she can prove the same by leading evidence, and that nothing new would emerge from investigation; hence, the application was treated as a complaint case. However, no detailed findings have been recorded by the learned trial court

¶21

CRLR No. 1262 of 2026

¶22

¶23

before registering the said application as a complaint case.

¶24

Prima facie, the contents raised by the applicant particularly regarding tenancy for the last 33 years, the room being locked at the time of the alleged incident, and her residence elsewhere required proper consideration.

¶25

The learned trial court has passed a cursory order without due application of judicial mind and without assigning adequate reasons.

¶26

In view thereof, the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. afresh, in accordance with law.

¶27

With these observations, the criminal revision is disposed of.

¶28

February 26, 2026 K.K. Maurya

¶29

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shabana Parveen v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabana Parveen v. State of U.P. and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ghanshyam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mamta Devi Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Vishal Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Dheeraj and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mamta Devi vs State of Up and 2 Others