HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 358 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for revisionist, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State/O.P. No. 1. No is present on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. 2. As per office report the service of notice upon O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 has been duly served in the year 2025. 3. Perused the record. 4. The revisionist Virendra Bahadur Pal has approached this court by means of present criminal revision challenging the judgment and order dated 11.12.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau (herein after referred as to "Trial Court") passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1297 of 2024 (Virendra Bahadur Pal Vs. Pintu Yadav and another) wherein the jurisdiction Magistrate treated the application under Section 173(4) BNSS filed by the revisionist/applicant as a complaint. Feeling aggrieved from that order the present revision has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the jurisdictional Magistrate illegally treated his application under Section 173(4) BNSS as a complaint while the jurisdiction Magistrate should pass an order for investigation in the case. The jurisdiction Magistrate is bound to pass an order for investigation exercising its power under Section 173(4) BNSS when the story presented before it constitute a cognizable offence mere the knowledge of facts of the applicant is not sufficient to treat the application under Section 173(4) BNSS as a complaint. While the impugned order has been passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate only on the ground that all the facts of the case are within the knowledge of the applicant/revisionist. To buttress his submissions, the learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon para no. 15 of this court passed in the case of Anmol Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others{2021(1)ADJ 400},wherein this court has observed that, "Perusal of the order clearly shows that the Magistrate has not applied judicious mind to the facts of the case and in particular paragraph No. 3 of the application, which not only made out commission of Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Nikhil Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Virendra Bahadur Pal .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) a cognizable offence but an offence of molestation and sexual assault on the mother of the applicant. Thee application clearly stated that the accused persons are related to influential persons and as such neither the FIR was being lodged nor the medical of the applicant's mother was carried out. In such maters the medical examination of the victim is necessary. The medical report of the victim is of importance. Merely because the facts are in the knowledge of the applicant, direction to lodge FIR can not 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 in passing the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The offence, as per the contents of the application is not a matrimonial, commercial or family dispute, etc. The order does not assign any valid reason nor reflects application of judicious mind to relevant considerations and does not stand the test of the law as laid down in the case of 'Ram Deo Food Products' (Supra and 'Gulab chand Upadhyay' (Supra." and thus it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and present criminal revision deserves to be allowed by this court invoking its revisional jurisdiction. 6. Per contra learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present revision and argued that from perusal of impugned order, it is clear that Jurisdictional Magistrate passed the impugned order on only on the basis of that all the facts are within the knowledge of applicant/revisionist but the Jurisdictional Magistrate found that the applicant can himself produce the evidence in the matter, meaning thereby in view of the Jurisdictional Magistrate there was nothing to bring on the part of record by way of investigation. So the Jurisdictional Magistrate rightly passed the impugned order applying the guidelines of Sukhwasi v. State of UP 2007 (59) SCC 739 of this case. So the present revision has no force at all and is liable to be dismissed. 7.Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of record, the submission urged by learned A.G.A. clearly borne out of the record. The story presented by revisionist/applicant before the Jurisdictional Magistrate through application under S.173 (4) BNSS does not contain any material which is to be pointed out to be recovered by the police in statutory investigation. 8. In view of above, the present revision has no force at all and requires no interference of this Court. 9.Accordingly it is dismissed. May 6, 2026 RPD CRLR No. 358 of 2025 2 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad