Disposed¶17

Ram Bhawan v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC13 May 2026CRLR/2949/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision disposed; challenge to rejection of application under S.173(4) BNSS (alleged police refusal to register FIR, Dial-112 complaints, incident dated 26.12.2025, P.S. Mataundh, District Banda); no illegality found in trial court order dated 02.02.2026; cross-case Crime No. 242 of 2025 under Sections 352, 351(2), 324(4) BNS against revisionist noted; liberty to file complaint preserved; Allahabad High Court, Subhash Chandra Sharma, J., decided May 14, 2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; revision disposed of finally with liberty reserved to the revisionist to file a complaint before the learned Court, which shall not act as a bar. ¶17

Ram Bhawan Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2949 of 2026

Ram Bhawan

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 9 Others

¶6

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Shriyansh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 86

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and the learned AGA appearing for the state.

¶10

This criminal revisionist has been filed by the revisionist against the order 02.02.2026 passed by learned Upper District and Session Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A. Act) Banda in Criminal Misc. Case No. 05 of 2026 (Ram Bhawan Vs. Hariom Tiwari and others), under Section 173(4) BNSS, Police Station Mataundh, District Banda.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, there was dispute between the revisionist and opposite parties in which the wall and the door was broken on 26.12.2025 at about 10 p.m. in the night. He called the police on Dial-112 on which police came and took parties to the police station thereafter released opposite parties and booked the revisionist for breach of peace. When he was released on bail and arrived at his home, he was assaulted by opposite parties and they were trying to throw him in a well after having him tied. In the meantime, his daughter-in-law, called the police on Dial-112 then the opposite parties went away. He went to the police station but no F.I.R. was lodged. There were several injuries on his person and he went to District Hospital where he was provided treatment but no medical report was prepared on 31.12.2025. On 1.1.2026 when he went to police station to lodge an F.I.R. it was again not lodged as a result he sent an application in this regard to S.P. Banda and also to the DIG but no any action was taken by the said authorities that was the reason present application was filed before the learned trial court. The learned trial court has rejected the application without considering the facts and circumstances of case application under Section 173(4) BNSS filed by the revisionist that is illegal and inappropriate, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court dated 02.02.2026 and allow the revision.

¶12

CRLR No. 2949 of 2026

¶13

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case there is dispute between both the parties regarding which a Case Crime No. 242 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(2), 324(4) BNS is already registered against the informant/revisionist by the opposite party and for making pressure on them, he has filed the present application before the learned trial court by exaggerating the facts. The learned trial court has considered all these facts and then passed the order in question. Further contended that the revisionist may have an option to make a complaint since all the facts within his knowledge and nothing is to be recovered on search by the police during the course of investigation.

¶15

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and the contents of application under section 173(4) BNSS and order passed by learned trial court, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶16

However, the revisionist may have an option to file a complaint before learned Court, if he so desires. This order will not come in the way as bar.

¶17

Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of finally.

¶18

May 14, 2026 Anurag Singh

¶19

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Bhawan v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bhawan v. State of U.P. and 9 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

Santram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarjan vs State of U.P. and Another

Arsh Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kesharwani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharmveer Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others