HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9126 of 2025 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. Heard Sri Hanuman Deen Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 1. By means of the present criminal appeal, the appellant has assailed the legality and correctness of the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti in Misc. Criminal Case No. 320 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. for directing registration of F.I.R. has been treated as a complaint case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant allegedly purchased a four-wheeler vehicle bearing No. UP-32-ED-5019 (Maruti Swift Dzire, Model 2012, white colour) from opposite party no. 2 on 15.05.2023 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which included Rs. 2,25,000/- towards the sale price and Rs. 75,000/- towards loan repayment and repair expenses, and the payment was made in cash. The vehicle was stated to be registered in the name of one Masalhuddeen. 3. It is further alleged that subsequently it came to light that the said vehicle had been reported stolen by its original owner, namely Masalhuddeen, pursuant to which the vehicle was taken into custody by the police. Thereafter, a compromise dated 16.09.2024 was entered into before the police authorities between the original owner, the appellant and opposite party no. 2, wherein the vehicle was returned to the original owner and opposite party no. 2 undertook to refund the entire amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the appellant by 15.10.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the said compromise, opposite party no. 2 failed to return the aforesaid amount and, upon being demanded, abused the appellant by using caste-based words and also extended threats to his life. It is submitted that applications were moved before the Station House Officer, Police Station Rudhauli and subsequently before the Superintendent of Police, 5. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Hanuman Deen Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Duryodhan Prasad Arya .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Basti, but no F.I.R. was registered. It is further contended that the appellant was constrained to file an application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. before the court below seeking a direction for registration of F.I.R.; however, the learned court below, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, treated the application as a complaint case on the ground that the evidence was within the control of the complainant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is legally unsustainable as the dispute involves serious allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and offences under the SC/ST Act, and the core issues—namely, whether the appellant had actually paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to opposite party no. 2 and whether the vehicle was validly sold—require thorough investigation by the police, which cannot be effectively adjudicated in a complaint case. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and submits that the order passed by the learned court below requires no interference by this Court. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the principal controversy revolves around the alleged transaction of sale of the vehicle, payment of consideration amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/-, the subsequent compromise, and the failure of opposite party no. 2 to refund the said amount. 9. The determination of these issues necessarily requires collection of evidence, including verification of the alleged cash transaction, examination of the sale documents, compromise deed, and the role of the parties, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be effectively undertaken without a proper police investigation. 10. The court below, while treating the application as a complaint case, has proceeded on the premise that the evidence is within the control of the appellant; however, such a view overlooks the fact that material aspects of the case, particularly the financial transaction and the circumstances under which the vehicle was sold, are matters requiring investigation. 11. This Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, relegating the appellant to a complaint case would not serve the ends of justice, as it would deprive him of a proper investigation into the allegations, which is essential for bringing the truth on record. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti is hereby set aside. 13. The matter is remanded back to the court below to reconsider the application of the appellant under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. afresh, 14. CRLA No. 9126 of 2025 2 in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 15. April 23, 2026 pks CRLA No. 9126 of 2025 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad