HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9803 of 2025 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Raj Narayan Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Anup Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Despite the fact that list has been revised but no one appears for the appellant to press the present criminal appeal. 2. The present appeal under Section 14A (1) of S.C./S.T. Act has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 29th July, 2025 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 828 of 2024 (Jitendra Bhati Vs. Abheshek Ranjan & Others), whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S. has been treated to be a complaint case. 3. Relevant facts are that an application has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 (4) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short "B.N.S.S.") stating therein that he is an MBBS student at AIIMS, Gorakhpur. On November 27, 2024, during the annual festival at AIIMS, when Singer Ajay Hooda was performing on stage, the appellant entered the venue. Upon seeing the appellant, opposite party no.2, namely, Abhishek Ranjan and one Rahul Ranjan, along with some of their friends, started abusing him by using cast indicated words and also started running towards him, threatening to beat him. The appellant tried to run away, but they caught him and began beating him with their hands, kicks, shoes, and slippers, and threatened to kill him by using cast indicated words. Meanwhile, some friends of the appellant and the members of college administration intervened and saved the life of the appellant. Three days later, i.e. 30th November, 2024 at about 11:04 a.m., when the appellant was eating lunch outside the campus, his classmate, namely, Kartik Kumar Pandey being friend of opposite party no.2 Abhishek Ranjan and Rahul Ranjan, called the appellant and abused him. Further, Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar, Ankit Kumar Dubey, Ashutosh Kumar Shukla, Krishna Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anup Singh, G.A. Jitendra Bhati .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Kartik Kumar Pandey said that since he was not present that day i.e. 27th November, 2024 and exhorted the appellant by saying that if he is the real son of his father, then he will come to his room and show his courage. He also said that they will kill him. The appellant immediately informed the Dean Dr. Shikha Seth and Hostel Provost Dr. Suryakant Seth about the said incident by sending a message on mobile. Dr. Shikha Seth told the appellant that he should go and talk to the Hostel Provost and if he meets with him, everything will be fine. After half an hour when the appellant came to the gate of AIIMS and talked to Dr. Shikha Seth on phone and asked for protection, then she told him to talk to the guard and assured him that he would get protection. When the appellant reached the PG Boy hostel and called the guard to talk to him, then his batch mates like Kartik Pandey, Akhilendra, Rahul Ranjan, Ashutosh Yadav, Shubham Jha, Sonu Singh Rajput, Yuvraj, Barun Saurabh, Shreyas Sharma, Adarsh, Prithviraj, Harsh Pratap, Gyan Prakash, Abhishek Anand including Ankit Dubey and Pratyush Pritam, arrived and dragged the appellant by catching his collar. They also beat him up brutally by kicking, punching, and slapping him and they also abused him by using caste indicated words. During the assault, Rahul Ranjan snatched the gold chain from neck of the appellant. Meanwhile, the friends of the appellant and the guards stationed there and managed to rescue him. During the incident, the aforesaid persons damaged Nexon car of the appellant bearing number- 24BH6954H, with bricks, stones, and sticks. The passenger in the car also suffered serious injuries. After the incident, the appellant went to the AIIMS police station and reported the incident. The appellant showed the injuries of his eyes, head, back, and other areas. The police told him to come to the police station the next day, but the police went to the AIIMS campus on the next day, where the appellant was not present. The appellant continues to face such serious consequences. The appellant was forced to give detailed written information of the incident to the AIIMS police station again but no action has been taken till date. The appellant is a student of Scheduled Caste, due to which, such serious incidents are being repeatedly caused to the appellant out of malice and intentionally. When the police station did not take any action, the appellant informed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur personally and through registered post, but no action has been taken till date. This act of the accused is prima facie a serious and punishable crime of cognizable nature. On the basis of the above facts, a request has been made by the appellant to pass an order for registering a case against the accused persons after conducting an investigation. Along with the said application the appellant also filed photocopies of the medical form, photocopy of the application sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, original copy of the registry receipt, photocopy of the caste certificate in the file. CRLA No. 9803 of 2025 2 4. It is the case of the appellant that the trial court has erred in law and on facts by treating the matter as a complaint case under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S., whereby he has been denied the statutory protection and investigative mechanism provided under the S.C./S.T. Act. The appellant being a scheduled caste student is entitled to protection of special legislation enacted for the prevention of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The failure to register a first information report on the application of the appellant amounts to a violation of the fundamental and statutory rights of the appellant. Further, it is the case of the appellant that acts of the accused persons upon the appellant, as detailed in his application under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S constitute a grave and cognizable offences including assault, caste indicated abuse, criminal intimidation, theft, and mischief, which warrant immediate registration of the first infrmation report and thorough investigation. 5. Again, it is the case of the appellant that the trial court has failed to appreciate the urgency and seriousness of the offences and has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in the court to ensure the protection of the appellant and the effective enforcement of the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. The impugned order has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, emboldening the accused and exposing the appellant to further threats, harassment and violence, in complete disregard of the law. It has also been stated that the order impugned dated 29th July, 2025 has been passed in mechanical manner, which suffers from manifest error of law, 6. On the above premise, learned counsel for the appellant urges that since the impugned judgment cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law and is arbitrary and illegal and also against the provisions of law, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the case of the appellant by means of present criminal appeal. They further submits that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity while passing the impugned judgment so as to warrant any interference by this appellate court. As such, the present appeal be dismissed. 8. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the case set up by the appellant by means of the present criminal appeal, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. and perused the materiel available on record including the impugned order. 9. Before examining the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment CRLA No. 9803 of 2025 3 and order passed by the trial court, this Court has now come to the findings recorded by the trial court in passing the impugned judgment and order. 10. The trial court has noted that a report was called from the AIIMS Police Station, Gorakhpur, regarding the application filed by the appellant under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S.. According to the police station's report, no case has been registered at the local police station in connection with the matter in question. 11. The trial court has recorded that a perusal of the application of the appellant under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S. clearly shows that the appellant is aware of all the facts relating to the crime and can present witnesses and other evidence. Therefore, instead of passing an order for directing the Police to investigate the matter, it is justified to convert the application of the appellant as a complaint. It is not necessary to gather further facts through investigation. 12. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the trial court has come to the conclusion that it would be appropriate, reasonable, relevant, expedient and beneficial in the interest of law and justice to register the matter in question as a complaint. Accordingly, the trial court has held that the application filed by the appellant is registered as a complaint under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S.S. 13. The perusal of the full bench judgments of this Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2001(43) ACC 50, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhwasi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2007 (59) ACC 739, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian in the case of Aleeque Padamsee Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2007) 6 ACC 171, would reveal that it is very much within the powers of the Magistrate to decide whether he ought to direct the registration of the F.I.R. in the matter or should take the cognizance of the case himself and proceed in the matter as a complaint case. The appropriateness of the course to be adopted by the Magistrate is his own judicial discretion which he must exercise with circumspection keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Magistrate chooses to treat the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and decides to proceed as such there is no illegality in adopting such a course. Of course if this Court finds that the discretion exercised by the Magistrate is likely to result in the miscarriage of justice, it shall not feel shy to intervene and set the course right, but ordinarily in the absence of impelling circumstances, this Court is loath to meddle with the lower court's discretion and pays due regard to the same. It is also not irrelevant to mention that even while proceeding as CRLA No. 9803 of 2025 4 a complaint case the Magistrate has ample powers to order an investigation under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. If needed the complainant can once again request the court concerned to direct investigation and the Magistrate himself if he deems it proper can adopt the same course and direct investigation u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court's decision given in Aleeque Padamsee (Supra) also indicates the same course in situations where the complainant feels aggrieved by the non registration of the F.I.R. in his case. Hence, there is no illegality in the said order. 14. After having considered the submissions made at the bar and after going through the case law, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor is there any abuse of the courts' process. Hence, no interference is called for by this Court in the present application. 15. The present criminal appeal is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. April 23, 2026 Sushil/- CRLA No. 9803 of 2025 5 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad