Dismissed¶22

Kuldeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2026CRLRD/905/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 173(4) BNSS; direction to lodge F.I.R.; marpeet; injuries on abdomen and ribs; District Hospital Banda parcha; no medical report; complaint remedy open; dial 100; application to S.S.P. by registered post; Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (JD) Banda; Criminal Misc. Case No. 57/XI/2025; order dated 24.12.2025; delay condonation; CRLRD No. 905 of 2026; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the revision condoned and revision treated as filed within time; prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 declined. ¶22

Kuldeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing the revision condoned and revision treated as filed within time; prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 declined.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 24.12.2025 of the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banda dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 173(4) BNSS for a direction to lodge an F.I.R. against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 calls for interference in revision.

¶12

Court's answer

Though marpeet causing injuries on the abdomen and ribs was alleged, the District Hospital Banda parcha mentions only 2-3 medicines and records no injury on the person of the injured/revisionist.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The delay in filing the revision is condoned and the revision is to be treated as filed within time.

¶9

Key takeaways

All the facts being within the revisionist's own knowledge and the matter requiring no recovery or search, the revisionist has the option to file a complaint, and the trial court's order will not come in the way as a bar.ratio¶21
The order passed by the learned trial court does not require any interference by this Court and the criminal revision is dismissed.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Defective No. 905 of 2026 (Allahabad High Court, Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.; decided May 6, 2026): Revision against order dated 24.12.2025 of the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banda in Criminal Misc. Case No. 57/XI/2025 dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 173(4) BNSS seeking a direction to the police to lodge an F.I.R. for alleged marpeet by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on 26.10.2025 — DISMISSED. Delay in filing condoned. Court held that all facts were within the revisionist's own knowledge, no recovery or search was required, the remedy of filing a complaint remained open, and the District Hospital Banda parcha recorded only medicines and no injury; hence no interference with the trial court's order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 905 of 2026

¶2

Kuldeep Kumar

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

V	ersus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Mukesh Prakash	Kumar	Khare, Om
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 86

¶6

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

¶7

Order on Delay condonation Application

¶8

The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application is sufficient to condone the delay.

¶9

Accordingly, the delay in filing the revision is, hereby, condoned. The revision be treated to be filed within time.

¶10

Order on Revision .

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A.

¶12

The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banda in Criminal Misc. Case NO. 57/XI/2025 by which the learned trial court has dismissed the application u/s 173(4) BNSS.

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, an application under Section 173(4) BNSS was filed by the revisionist to direct the police station to lodge an F.I.R. against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The facts in brief were that the revisionist was coming back to his house by motorcycle on 26.10.2025 at about 9.30 p.m. and when he arrived at bypass

¶14

CRLRD No. 905 of 2026

¶15

¶16

road Tindwari, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 came out and stop the motorcycle and then committed marpeet with the revisionist and also caused damage to the motorcycle. The revisionist sustained injuries on his abdomen and ribs. In the meantime, a truck passed on the road as a result the accused persons went away by threatening him. He called police on dial 100 which took him to the hospital and thereafter he went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. but it was not lodged. He sent an application through registered post to S.S.P. but no action was taken as a result he filed present application before the learned court but it was rejected vide order dated 24.12.2025 illegally. The learned trial court must have treated the application as complaint but failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, therefore, request to set it aside the order passed by learned court and allow the revision.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, all the facts are in the knowledge of the revisionist and it does not require any investigation or recovery, therefore, he may have an option to file complaint in this regard. He also contended that no cognizable offence is disclosed from contents of the application moved by the revisionist. As a result no such direction can be given to the police to lodge the F.I.R. There is no any medical report supporting the allegation of the revisionist. The parcha from District Hospital Banda has been filed on which some medicines are mentioned but there is no mention of injuries on the person of the injured/revisionist. All these facts were taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing the order in question.

¶18

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, the contents of the application under Section 173(4) BNSS and order dated 24.12.2025 passed by learned trial court, it appears that though there is allegation of marpeet by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 with the revisionist causing injuries on his abdomen and ribs but there is a parcha from district Hospital Banda in which only 2-3 medicines are mentioned but there is no mention of any injury

¶19

CRLRD No. 905 of 2026

¶20

¶21

present on the person of the injured/revisionist to show that he sustained injuries on his person in the incident. On the other hand, all the facts are in the knowledge of the revisionist himself and matter does not require any kind of recovery or search, therefore, he may have an option to file complaint against them in this regard and order passed by learned trial court dated 24.12.2025 will not come in the way as bar.

¶22

Accordingly, the order passed by learned trial court does not require any interference by this Court and this criminal revision is dismissed .

¶23

May 6, 2026 Anurag Singh

¶24

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶25

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

Kuldeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kumar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indradev @ Chhotu Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vivek Alias Kamal Singh Shyoran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivkumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shivkumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajeshwar Prasad Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karunashankar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another