Allowed¶19

Sudha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2026NA528/483/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 173(4) BNSS; FIR registration; Magistrate treating application as complaint; theft of Rs.5,000/-; police investigation; Section 528 BNSS application; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Mukesh Kharwar; Sudha Devi v. State of U.P.; Hardoi; remand for fresh decision; six weeks timeline.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 01.12.2025 set aside; matter remanded to the court concerned for a fresh decision on the applicant's application under Section 173(4) BNSS within six weeks of production of a certified copy of this order. ¶19

Sudha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Magistrate erred in treating the applicant's application under Section 173(4) BNSS as a complaint instead of ordering registration of an FIR, despite the allegation of theft of Rs.5,000/- which required enquiry/investigation by the police.

¶17

Court's answer

Since an allegation of theft of Rs.5,000/- and looting of the shop's belongings was levelled in the application, the fact required investigation by the police; therefore an order for registration of the FIR ought to have been passed by the Magistrate, who ignored this and wrongly treated the application as a complaint; the applicant's case is squarely covered by the judgment in Mukesh Kharwar (supra).

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The application is allowed; the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court concerned to take a fresh decision on the application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS within six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before it.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Brij Raj Singh, J. — Application under Section 528 BNSS allowed. The applicant's application under Section 173(4) BNSS (filed 21.11.2025, after opposite party no.2 refused on 30.09.2025 to register an FIR for the incident of 10.09.2025 in which a theft of Rs.5,000/- occurred and four persons were injured) was treated by the Additional Civil Judge (CD), Hardoi as a complaint instead of an order for registration of FIR. Held: an allegation of theft of Rs.5,000/- and looting of shop belongings requires investigation by the police, so an order for registration of FIR ought to have been passed; the case is squarely covered by the coordinate-Bench judgment in Mukesh Kharwar (Application U/S 482 No. 24716 of 2024, decided 02.09.2024). The impugned order dated 01.12.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision on the Section 173(4) application within six weeks of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 483 of 2026

Sudha Devi

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 11 others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Kumar Singh, Anchal Singh, Rifat Naaz, Shobhit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 16

¶10

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite parties no.1 and 2.

¶12

The present application has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (CD), Hardoi in Criminal Misc. Case No.3612 of 2025, Sudha Devi Vs. Ramakant and others, with a further prayer to re-consider and decide the application of the applicant filed under Section 173(4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 afresh in the light of the judgements pronounced in this regard.

¶13

In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite parties no.3 to 12 is dispensed with as they are not aggrieved at this stage.

¶14

Counsel for the applicant submits that an application was filed by the applicant on 30.09.2025 to lodge an FIR regarding the incident, which took place on 10.09.2025 at 8 A.M. before opposite party no.2, who sent the injured persons for medical examination at Community Health Center, Mallawan. The medical report indicates that four persons had received injuries, but in spite of that opposite party no.2 refused to lodge the FIR on the pressure of private opposite parties. Thereafter, applicant filed an application under Section 173(4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on 21.11.2025, but the Magistrate treated the application as complaint instead of passing an order for registration of the FIR. He

¶15

NA528 No. 483 of 2026

¶16

¶17

further submits that it is a specific case of the applicant that on 10.09.2025 at 8 A.M. a theft of Rs.5,000/- was committed by some persons and the belongings were thrown outside the shop and in this regard the CCTV footage of the occurrence was also annexed with the application. It is submitted that the Magistrate has not applied his mind properly as once there is an allegation of theft of Rs.5,000/-, then it is a matter of enquiry by the police, for which FIR should be registered. He, therefore, submits that the Magistrate has committed error in not ordering for registration of the FIR. In support of his contention, counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgement passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/s 482 No.24716 of 2024, Mukesh Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and three others, decided on 02.09.2024 [Paragraph18(40.08)(i)]. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be set side.

¶18

After going through the record, it is evident that an allegation is levelled in the application regarding the theft of Rs.5,000/- and other belongings of the shop were looted. This fact requires investigation by the police. Therefore, an order for registration of the FIR ought to have been passed by the Magistrate, but he ignored the said fact and treated the application as complaint. The Magistrate has not considered the relevant fact while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court passed in Mukesh Kharar (supra).

¶19

Application is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the court concerned with a direction that it shall take a fresh decision on the application filed under Section 173(4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.

¶20

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶21

February 10, 2026

¶22

Rao/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sudha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 11 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

Santosh Kumar Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajkaran Chaurasiya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Dilip Singhh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Prem Narayan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Siyaram @ Siyaram Godiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shubham Agarwal and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others