HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9565 of 2025 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1558 of 2024 (Aruna Vs. Jayveer), under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on 11.10.2024 at about 11.30 A.M. the applicant was going to civil court, Muzaffarnagar with her minor son, the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 stopped her near Bhopa road railway bridge and threatened to kill her by showing pistol. They also snatched the purse of the applicant, containing some money and gold earrings. The applicant visited the local police for lodging the first information report but no report was lodged by the police. Thereafter, she sent an application to the S.S.P., Muzaffarnagar by registered post but no first information report was registered. Thereafter she filed an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar but the learned Magistrate vide order dated 08.01.2025 treated the same as complaint case. It is further submitted that a clear cognizable offence is made out against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 but the learned Magistrate has committed illegality in passing the impugned order, which is liable to be quashed. There is criminal history of four Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vivek Singh Smt Aruna .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) cases against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 (2) SCC 1 and XYZ Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors,, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1002. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the present complaint has been filed against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 due to previous enmity. The learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. The applicant will get an opportunity to be examined herself under Section 223 B.N.S.S. and witnesses under Section 225 B.N.S.S. 6. As per fact of the case, the applicant filed an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. for registration of the first information report with the allegation that on 11.10.2024 at about 11.30 A.M. she was going to civil court Muzaffarnagar along with her minor son. While she reached near Bhopa Road railway bridge, the opposite party nos 2 to 5 stopped her by showing pistol and stated to return back otherwise her entire family would not survive. She further stated that they ran away from there when Sudhir Kumar and Narendra Kumar reached there. The opposite party nos. 2 to 5 snatched her purse containing some money and gold earring. The said application was treated as complaint case by the learned Magistrate. The main submission advanced on behalf of the applicant is that the court should have directed for registration of the case as a criminal case is made out against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot help. 7. It is settled principles of law that if a cognizable offence is made out in any case, the police must register the case but it is also settled principles of law that if anyone files an application under Section 173(4) Cr.P.C., the concerned Magistrate is not bound to pass an order for registration of the first information report and in some cases the said application may be registered as complaint case. 8. In the present case, the learned Magistrate after perusal of the NA528 No. 9565 of 2025 2 record, has reached on a conclusion that on the said application, no order for registration of the first information report is required and, therefore, the said application was registered as complaint case. The applicant will get an opportunity to be examined herself under Section 223 B.N.S.S. and witnesses under Section 225 B.N.S.S. There is no illegality in passing the impugned order. 9. The application U/S 528 B.N.S. being devoid of merit, is dismissed. March 9, 2026 Rmk. NA528 No. 9565 of 2025 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad