HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6686 of 2025 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. Perused the impugned order. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist- Nitya Singh against the impugned order dated 8.9.2025 passed by ACJM, Court NO.9, Prayagraj on the application preferred by her under Section 173 (4) BNSS titled Nitya Singh vs. Garun Maurya and others, Police Station-Georgetown, District-Prayagraj. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that she had filed an application application under Section 173 (4) of B.N.S.S., 2023 before the learned Magistrate. The said application has been registered as a complaint case and notices have been issued to the opposite parties. He has submitted that the offence disclosed in the complaint are clearly shown as cognizable offence. Hence, the FIR shall be registered. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has filed and supported the law laid down by this High Court in Amit Kumar vs. State of UP : Law Finder Doc Id # 1877056. 5. On the contrar, learned AGA appearing for the State has submitted that the real dispute is between the husband and the wife; the wife is the revisionist and the opposite party No.Garun Maurya is the husband. Learned AGA has relied on pages-40 and 41, the report of the concerned police station at Georgetown, Prayagraj that there are several allegations Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Nitin Sharma, Pawan Sut Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nitya Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 8 Others .....Opposite Party(s) and matter in dispute between the husband and the wife and a Case Crime No.13/2016 and the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are also pending. 6. Perused all the averments made by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA. It is not in dispute prima facie that the revisionist and opposite party No.2 are the wife and the husband, respectively. The revisionist had filed an application under Section 173(4), B.N.S.S., 2023, which has not been rejected by the learned Magistrate, but it has been registered as a complaint case and the opportunity is provided to the revisionist. In paragraph-8 of the complaint and the details mentioned in paragraph-11 of the complaint, both are not in consonance with each other. All these facts are in clear knowledge of the complainant and she is having all the opportunity to proceed with the case. 7. In view thereof, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The instant revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. It is dismissed, accordingly. October 29, 2025 LN Tripathi CRLR No. 6686 of 2025 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad