Disposed¶15

Rajendra Pal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2026CRLR/2083/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajendra Pal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, Criminal Revision No. 2083 of 2026 (Allahabad High Court, Subhash Chandra Sharma, J., April 10, 2026): challenge to rejection under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. of application for direction to lodge F.I.R.; alleged rangdari demand of Rs. 5 lakh, demolition of boundary wall and theft of steel gate at plot in Kanpur Nagar; trial court treated matter as civil dispute; High Court found no ground for interference; liberty to file complaint preserved; disposed of at admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Revision disposed of at the admission stage without interfering with the impugned order; liberty left open to move a complaint before the court of competent jurisdiction. ¶15

Rajendra Pal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2083 of 2026

¶2

Rajendra Pal

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)		: Piyush Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.
Court No.- 86

¶5

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the present revision and set aside the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 2462 of 2024 (Rajendra Pal Vs. Pankaj Pal and others) under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., Police Station Rawatpur, District Kanpur Nagar by which the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. of the revisionist has been rejected.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was filed by the revisionist against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 for direction to the police to lodge an F.I.R. regarding incident which occurred with the revisionist but it was rejected by the learned court without considering the contents of the application on the ground of showing it to be dispute in the civil nature. He further submits that there was a plot of revisionist which was surrounded with boundary and steel gate. The opposite party no. 1 who is working in C.I.S.F. and his brother opposite party no. 2 demanded rupees five lakh as rangdari for starting construction on that plot. Once they demolished the boundary wall and also stole the steel gate, again the boundary wall was constructed. Interference was made by the opposite parties and again made demand of rupees five lakh as rangdari for construction on the aforesaid plot. The learned trial court did not consider all these facts but rejected the application even it was not treated as complaint though it was within the discretion of the learned court but it was not exercised judicially, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 06.02.2026 and allow the present revision.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this

¶10

CRLR No. 2083 of 2026

¶11

¶12

case there is dispute between the parties relating to plot of land though there is allegation of maar-peet but there is no any injury report in support of the allegations for maar-peet and also for asking rangdari from the revisionist that is the reason the learned trial court has rejected the application under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the order.

¶13

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the contents of application under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S. and the order passed by the learned court dated 06.02.2026, it appears that there is no any ground to make interference in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 06.10.2025.

¶14

So far as the argument for treating the application as complaint is concerned, the applicant may have an option to move a complaint in this regard before the learned court concerned having jurisdiction and this order will not come in the way as bar.

¶15

Accordingly, this revision is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶16

April 10, 2026 Suraj Srivastav

¶17

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Pal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Pal v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Raj Kumar Nagar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdeesh Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamendra Singh @ Betu and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Mustafa @ Mustafa Noori vs State of U.P. and Another

Nayab Khan Alias Nimma vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Kamil and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others