Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22316 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3347 of 2025 Applicant :- Shariba Parveen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA on behalf of the State- respondent. 2. By means of the present writ petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of BNSS), the petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.07.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki in Misc. Case No.719 of 2024 (Shariba Parveen vs. Ram Chandra Yadav) wherein the application of the petitioner under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint case. 3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary School, Chhilgawan, Block Nindura, District Barabanki and has stated that on 19.09.2023 at about 11:00 am in the premises of school, the private respondent was making a video from his mobile while she was on telephonic conversation with her mother in a casual manner and when she objected, the private respondent stated that he has made the video with intent to blackmail her and he would edit the video and circulated to the public and defame her so that her service may be terminated. It has further been alleged that when she tried to restrain the private respondent from making video, he started too molest her. It has further been stated that the petitioner tried to contacting the police in order to register the FIR and when the same was not registered, she has moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for a direction to the police to register the first information report. The Chief Judicial Magistrate while considering the said application by means of the impugned order has recorded a finding that all the facts as disclosed in the complaint are within the knowledge of the petitioner and she would in a position to prosecute the said case and accordingly has registered this case as a complaint case. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the seizure of the mobile phone and other facts are matter which can be duly investigated by the police and accordingly, has assailed the validity of the impugned order. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and stated the facts as disclosed in the complaint would clearly indicate that all the facts are within the knowledge and competent of the complainant / petitioner and consequently, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 6. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. 7. A perusal of the complaint indicates that only video has been made by the private respondent and the rest of the contents correlate to threat being given by the private respondent to the petitioner that he would edit the said video and defame the petitioner. There is no allegation that whether the respondent has in fact edited the video and circulated the same and merely a remote threat has been offered to the petitioner in this regard. 8. Considering the entire allegations as stated in the complaint, we find that all the facts narrated therein are within the competence of the complainant herself and in case, had there been any allegation that the video has been made or has been circulated would have required police investigation. In absence of any such assertion made by the complainant/petitioner, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki for proceeding in the said case as a complaint case. 9. In light of the above, I do not find any ground for interference. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of merit and is dismissed. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 21.4.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench