Dismissed¶17

Vinod Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2026CRLR/812/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vinod Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others; CRLR No. 812 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Abdul Shahid, J.; Section 173(4) B.N.S.S.; Section 175(4) B.N.S.S.; complaint against government servant / postal employee (Sub-Post Master, Menhdawal, Sant Kabir Nagar); locus standi of third-party complainant; rejection of application and treatment as complaint case; FIR registration; high-level inquiry and confession by opposite party no. 2; criminal revision dismissed on 11.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The revisionist failed to establish his locus standi to file a personal complaint against a government official. ¶11

Vinod Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 812 of 2026

¶3

Vinod Pratap Singh

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

		Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others			....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	:	Keshawa Prasad Chandra Pandey	Pandey,	Krishna
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

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

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order dated 27.11.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, is illegal, arbitrary, and against the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the allegations against the accused are very serious, and without registration of the F.I.R. and without conducting a detailed inquiry by a senior police officer, it cannot be concluded that no prima facie case is made out.

¶9

It is also submitted that, due to the persistent efforts of the revisionist, a second high-level inquiry was conducted, during which opposite party no. 2 confessed to the offence. Despite this, no legal action has been taken against opposite party no. 2.

¶10

The complaint has been filed against opposite party no. 1, Ajay Kumar Verma, the then Incharge Sub-Post Master, Sub-Post Office Menhdawal, presently working as Clerk, Sub-Post Office Menhdawal, Police Station Menhdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar. The impugned order dated 27.11.2025 was passed whereby the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was rejected and treated as a complaint case.

¶11

The revisionist filed the complaint along with detailed evidence against a government employee. However, the revisionist has failed to establish his locus standi to file a personal complaint against a government official.

¶12

There is non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. The application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. filed by the revisionist/complainant, being a third party, has been registered as a complaint against a government official without complying with the

¶13

CRLR No. 812 of 2026

¶14

¶15

provisions of Section 175(4) B.N.S.S. The mandatory requirements under Sections 173(4) and 175(4) B.N.S.S. have not been fulfilled.

¶16