Ghirau Yadav @ Ghirre vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. and 8 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1162 of 2026

¶3

Ghirau Yadav @ Ghirre

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. The Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. And 8 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhanu Pratap Singh, Gyan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vivek Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

Issuance of notice to opposite party nos.2 to 9 is dispensed with, in view of the order proposed to be passed and also for the reason that opposite party nos.2 to 9 are not aggrieved at the moment.

¶12

The present application has been filed with the following main relief:

¶13

"...... it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 19.01.2026 passed in Criminal Revision No.96 of 2025 (Ghirau alias Ghirre Versus State of U.P. and others) by the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur, whereby the revision filed by the applicant has been rejected and also quash the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in Misc. Case No.70 of 2025 (Ghirau alias Ghirre Versus Guruvachan Yadav and others) by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur, whereby the application moved by the applicant under Section 173(4) read with 175(3) of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been treated as a complaint, in the interest of justice."

¶14

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that opposite party nos.2 to 9 are resident of the same village and altercation took place on

¶15

NA528 No. 1162 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

8.6.2025 at around 1:00 p.m. between the parties. The opposite party no.2 lodged FIR for the same incident which took place on 8.6.2025, bearing FIR/Case Crime No.0059 of 2025 on 8.6.2025 under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 of BNS at Police Station Gaura Chauraha, District Balrampur against the son of the applicant, namely, Anil Kapoor and other co-accused. The FIR on the application of the applicant was not registered, therefore, he filed an application under Section 173(4) of BNSS. The Magistrate called a report from the police and after considering the report, the Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 7.10.2025, treating the case of the applicant as complaint against opposite party nos.2 to 9. The applicant being aggrieved against the said order, filed a revision before the court below, which was also rejected on 19.1.2026.

¶18

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant side had received serious injuries and he has invited attention of this Court towards the injury report (Annexure-4), which indicates that Raghu Yadav, Laxman and Gopal have received serious injuries and their injuries have been brought on record. Raghu Yadav has received the following injuries:

¶19

"1. Stitched wound over fenital part of scalp length (07 CM) Breath and Depth could not be measured due to stitches put Colour of red wound is redish c scab.

¶20

2. C/o pain over Left hand no external sign of injury visible."

¶21

Laxman has received the following injuries:

¶22

"1. Stitched wound over Parietal part of scalp. Dimension 3.5 cm in Lenth. Breath and Depth could not be measured due to stitches. Colour of Redish c scab.

¶23

2. C/o pain over face No. extent sign of Injury Present.

¶24

3. C/o pain over RT of head No extend Sign of Injury Present."

¶25

Gopal has received the following injuries:

¶26

"1. Leniar abarasion over Back of Neck Dimension 03x02×01 cm Colour is

¶27

NA528 No. 1162 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

redish.

¶30

2. C/o pain swelling at present over RT hand thumb.

¶31

3. Contusion over LT shoulder 07cm x 0.2 cm colour is redish."

¶32

The photographs have also been annexed showing that serious injuries have been received by the applicant side.

¶33

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that inspite of the fact that three injured persons of the applicant side received serious injuries, FIR has not been lodged and the court below has passed an order for treating the application of the applicant as complaint whereas the application of opposite party nos.2 to 9 for registering the FIR has been entertained by the police and FIR has been lodged against the applicant on 8.6.2025 bearing FIR/Case Crime No.0059 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 of BNS at Police Station Gaura Chauraha, District Balrampur. It has been submitted that opposite party nos.2 to 9 did not receive any injury, but their FIR has been lodged, whereas the application of the applicant under Section 173(4) BNSS has been partly allowed to the extent that the same has been treated as complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both the courts below have not applied their mind and the order has been passed treating the application of the applicant as complaint. He has relied upon a judgement of this Court in Anmol Singh vs. State of U.P. and others: (Application U/s 482 No.13804 of 2020) , decided on 7.1.2021.

¶34

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State, one fact which has come before this Court is that three persons from the applicant side have received injuries, but the application of the applicant under Section 173(4) BNSS has been treated as complaint and there is no order for registration of FIR. However, the police has lodged FIR on the application of opposite party no.2, which is not sustainable. Once the FIR of opposite party no.2 has been registered by the police inspite of the fact that no one has received any injury from the side of opposite parties whereas three persons from the side of applicant have received injuries, the orders passed by both the courts below cannot not survive in the given facts. Both the orders appear to be perverse.

¶35

NA528 No. 1162 of 2026

¶36

4

¶37

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application is allowed and the impugned orders dated 7.10.2025 and 19.1.2026 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Magistrate to take a fresh decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, keeping in view the observations made by this Court hereinabove.

¶38

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶39

March 30, 2026

¶40

Sachin

¶41

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ghirau Yadav @ Ghirre v. State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghirau Yadav @ Ghirre v. State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Singh Surya Kumar Chandel and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Ajay and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Vinay Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anupam Shukla @ Anupam Kumar Shukla and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ayush Aggarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Dipti Vishwakarma and Another vs Ajay Kumar Vishwakarma and 5 Others