Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62858 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6691 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt. Monika @ Pappal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Rai,Om Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Chandra Shekhar Saran and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocates appearing for the State. 3. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police/Executive Magistrate, Police Commissionarate Gautam Budh Nagar whereby, the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 164 B.N.S.S., 2023, had been rejected. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the application under Section 164 B.N.S.S., 2023 was filed by the revisionist before the Deputy Commissioner of Police/Executive Magistrate, Police Commissionarate Gautam Budh Nagar on which he passed an order on 17.10.2024 whereby, the report of the concerned Police Station was sought. It has further been contended that pursuant to the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the concerned Police Station submitted its report and on that basis, the Deputy Commissioner of Police had passed order on 12.11.2024 whereby, the application, filed by the revisionist under Section 164 B.N.S.S., 2023, had been rejected. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that from bare perusal of the page no.8 of this criminal revision which contains the order impugned in this criminal revision, it becomes crystal clear that no case was registered on the application filed by the revisionist as no case number has been allotted and further, after submission of the report by the police, no date was fixed in the matter and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, on its own, by making an endorsement on the application itself, had rejected the said application vide order dated 12.11.2024. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has thus argued that the entire exercise done in the matter of the revisionist reflects total lack of procedure on the part of the police authorities in disposal of the cases filed under Section 164 B.N.S.S., 2023. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Police/Executive Magistrate Police Commissionarate, Gautam Budh Nagar had proceeded to decide the application filed by the revisionist as per the prevailing practice in the Police Commissionarate. He ultimately submits that the case ought to have been registered and after submission of the police report, a date must have been fixed and thereafter the matter would have been decided. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate very fairly submits that the order impugned in this criminal revision may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police/Executive Magistrate, Police Commissionarate Gautam Budh Nagar for registering the case and decide it afresh. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 9. In view of the stand taken by the State, this criminal revision is hereby allowed. The order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police/Executive Magistrate, Police Commissionarate Gautam Budh Nagar, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police/Executive Magistrate, Police Commissionarate Gautam Budh Nagar to register a case on the application filed by the revisionist under Section 164 B.N.S.S., 2023 and thereafter call report from the police and decide the matter in accordance with law. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Salim Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad