HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9807 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Shri Harsh Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Amrit Raj, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 17.7.2025, passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act/Rape Second, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No.12 of 2025 (Bittan Devi vs. State of UP and others), as well as order dated 13.12.2025, passed by learned ACJM, Fifth, Jaunpur, in Case No.1831 of 2024, having registration No.2688 of 2024 (Bittan Devi vs. State of UP and others), under Section 175(3) of BNSS, Police Station Shahganj, District Jaunpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents, in collusion with the revenue authorities, got their names mutated pertaining to Gata Sankhya 855, which in fact was the property of the petitioner after the death of her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that initially the name of the petitioner was mutated in respect of the above property. However, the respondents, in collusion with the revenue authorities, got their names mutated without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to file objections. He submitted that he moved an application under Section 175(3) BNSS before the learned ACJM, Jaunpur, but the said application was converted into a complaint case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the act committed by the respondents and the revenue authorities amounts to an offence of fraud and the allegations necessitate investigation. Therefore, the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harsh Vardhan Singh, Shefali Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Bittan Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) conversion of the application under Section 175(3) BNSS into a complaint case is per se illegal. He submitted that against the order dated 13.12.2024, he preferred Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2025. However, the said revision was also dismissed on 17.07.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts have erred in converting his application under Section 175(3) BNSS into a complaint case because the allegations require investigation and the petitioner-complainant cannot tender such evidence during complaint proceedings. He submitted that both the orders suffer from illegality and are liable to be set aside. 4. Sri R.P. Singh, learned AGA submitted that the petitioner herself has stated in her application under Section 175(3) BNSS that her name was mutated in the year 1990 and the names of the respondents were mutated in the year 1992. He further submitted that the record filed with this petition reveals that subsequently mutation in favour of the respondents came into effect after an order passed by the revenue authorities. He further submitted that the claim of the petitioner that she remained unaware for nearly 20 years about the mutation in favour of the respondents is unusual and difficult to believe. He therefore submitted that the orders passed by both the courts do not warrant any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by both the courts below. 6. It is apparent from the allegations that the name of the respondents was mutated in the year 1992, whereas the name of the petitioner was mutated earlier. Therefore, the dispute between the parties appears to be a title dispute. In the given circumstances, conversion of the application under Section 175(3) BNSS into a complaint case does not suffer from any infirmity because the evidences pertaining to fraud or other irregularities can also be produced by the petitioner during the complaint proceedings. 7. Accordingly, both the orders passed by the courts below are upheld and this petition stands dismissed. May 6, 2026 KJ A227 No. 9807 of 2025 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad