Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76580 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5295 of 2025 Applicant :- Pratap Narain Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Saumya Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been preferred against the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A. Act), Jhansi in Misc. Case No.435 of 2024 (Pratap Narain Sharma v. Unknown) under Section 175(3) BNSS, Police Station- Garautha, District- Jhansi, whereby the application filed by applicant under Section 175(3) BNSS has been registered as a complaint case, declining the prayer of investigation by police. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has filed application under Section 175(3) BNSS against 5-6 unknown persons, alleging that on 21.08.2024 some unknown persons have trespassed into his house and they have assaulted the applicant and his wife with leg and fists and they have forcibly snatched Mangalsutra from his wife. It was further alleged that the said miscreants have also snatched a golden chain, ring and Rs.5600/- from the complainant. In the alleged incident, the wife of complainant had sustained injuries and she was medically examined. It was submitted that the application of applicant discloses commission of cognizable offence but despite that learned Special Judge has refused to make a direction for registration of case and investigation by police. The alleged miscreants are not known and thus, the identity of miscreants can only be ascertained during investigation by police. Question of recovery of robbed articles is also involved. Learned counsel has referred case of Sharad Chandra Pandey v. State of UP and 5 others, Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46549 and submitted that impugned order is against law and thus, liable to be set aside and that a direction may be made to the police for registration of the case. 4. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the aforesaid application. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 6. The provisions of Section 175(3) BNSS are similar to the provisions of Section 156(3) CrPC. It is well-settled that an Officer-in-Charge of a police station may investigate any cognizable offence having committed in the relevant area pertaining to such police station. Provisions of Section 156(3) CrPC provide that any Magistrate empower under Section 190 CrPC may order such an investigation. It is well-settled that jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC/ 175(3) BNSS has to be exercised in a judicial manner. In case of Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of M.P. and Another reported in (2001) 2 SCC 628, the Apex Court has held as under :- "Any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter." 7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that no sufficient reason has been disclosed, on the basis of which, the Special Judge has proceeded to treat the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C./ 175(3) BNSS as a complaint. Merely because the facts are in the knowledge of the applicant, direction to lodge FIR cannot be refused. The gravity/seriousness of the offence; the requirement of the evidence for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution, and basically the interest of justice depending on the facts of each case, need be considered while passing the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C./ 175(3) BNSS. The impugned order does not assign any valid reason nor reflects application of judicial mind and the same has been passed in a mechanical manner. As the identity of alleged miscreants is not known, the same can only be ascertained in investigation. It appears that application of applicant has been registered as a complaint merely on the ground that the facts of the case are within the knowledge of the applicant thus, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 is set aside and the learned Special Judge is directed to pass an order afresh on the application under Section 175(3) BNSS filed by the applicant in accordance with law. 9. The Application U/S 528 BNSS is allowed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Rama Kant Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad