HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4048 of 2022 . Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. 2. The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.3864 of 2022; Ravikant Pandey Vs. S.K. Sharma U/S 156(3) CrPC. 3. The applicant has challenged the order dated 20.04.2022, by which, the application U/S 156(3) CrPC has been treated as a complaint case. The applicant is aggrieved partly with the order on the ground that the records are available and only after registration of the FIR, the investigation can be done properly. 4. It is the case of the applicant that his son, namely, Siddharth Panday was granted a KCC loan from the State bank of India, Sultanpur of ₹60,000/- but due to pandemic, the applicant could not deposit the amount of loan and taking the benefit of the same, opposite party no.2 sent a notice to the house of the applicant with a seal and signature on printed proforma. The notice was received by the applicant at his home at about 01.01.2022 for credit amount of ₹94,000/- and remaining loan Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anjani Kumar Dvivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Anurag Srivastava Ravi Kant Pandey .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another .....Opposite Party(s) amount of ₹89,236/-, after which, he approached the higher authority of State bank of India, Sultanpur and apprised the situation. The statement was made by the applicant before the bank authority that only ₹60,000 was taken as loan and wrong entry has been made but no heed was paid,  as a result, he filed an application U/S 156(3) CrPC for lodging of the FIR, making the allegation against the bank manager regarding fraud and the Court of CJM, Sultanpur vide his order dated 22.04.2022, treated the application of the applicant as a complaint case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it was incumbent upon the court below to issue direction for registration of FIR, the matter is pertaining to financial involvement and threat, therefore, the only way is to lodge the FIR so that the matter can be investigated fairly and properly and but treating the application U/S 156(3) CrPC as a complaint case is erroneous course. 6. On the other hand, Shri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I has submitted that there are two options before the sessions court on the application U/S 156(3) CrPC, first one is that the court may direct the concerned police station to register the FIR and the second is that the court may treat the application as a complaint case. It has been submitted that the court has adopted the second option treating the application U/S 156(3) CrPC as a complaint case. He has further submitted that the applicant may lead all the evidences and he may also request the court below to summon the relevant records, which is in the custody of the bank. In such circumstances, there is no illegality committed by the court below in passing the impugned order. 7. After going through the record and hearing the parties, I am of the view that the grievance of the applicant has already been considered to the extent that the application U/S 156(3) CrPC has been treated as a complaint case and he can also file application to summon the relevant record, if required. In such circumstances, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 20.04.2022. 8. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of with A482 No. 4048 of 2022 2 the direction to the CJM, Sultanpur to proceed in the case, immediately. October 7, 2025 V. Sinha A482 No. 4048 of 2022 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench