HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8887 of 2025 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Praveen Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for opposite parties no.3, 4 and 6 to and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T. Act against the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2882 of 2024 (Devendra Kumar vs. Ajeet Pandey and others) whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("B.N.S.S."), seeking a direction for registration of the First Information Report and investigation into the incident dated 16.11.2024, has been rejected. 4. Briefly stated, the case of the applicant is that on 16.11.2024 at about 5:30 p.m., he was assaulted, resulting in injuries for which he was admitted at Maa Ahilya Bai Hospital from 21.11.2024 to 24.11.2024. The appellant/applicant moved an application at Police Station Maharajpur and thereafter, having received no response, sent an application by registered post to the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar on 04.12.2024. No action having been taken, the appellant/applicant approached the court below on 09.12.2024 under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. praying that the concerned police station be directed to register the F.I.R. and investigate the matter. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Santosh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Praveen Kumar Mishra, G.A., Sharique Ahmed Devendra Kumar Alias Pankaj .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. In support of the application, the applicant filed his own affidavit, a copy of the application sent to the Commissioner of Police, the registry receipt, a copy of his caste certificate, photograph, copy of Aadhar card and photocopies of the medical papers. 6. The medico-legal record on the file (examination of the applicant at Maa Ahilya Bai Hospital on 21.11.2024) records an abraded contused swelling of 6x3 cm on the left side of the forehead and a lacerated wound of 1x0.5 cm on the front of the forehead, both attributed to a hard and blunt object, with a further opinion for a CT scan of the head and an opinion of a neurosurgeon, and the injuries were opined to be about six days old. This medical evidence, on its face, corroborates the applicant's version of having sustained injuries in an assault on 16.11.2024. 7. The trial court called for a report from the concerned police station. The report indicated that, according to the police enquiry, the appellant had been asked not to pursue a complaint against the opposite party no.2 in exchange for financial assistance towards his treatment; that a sum of Rs.8,000/- was paid in cash to the appellant on 18.11.2024 by one Dilip, the contractor under whom the appellant worked; that a further sum of Rs. 4,000/- was paid at the rate of Rs.500/- per day between 21.11.2024 and 28.11.2024; and that the parties had thereby arrived at an oral compromise. On this basis, and on the further ground that the appelant's application dated 09.12.2024 before the court below did not disclose the fact of his having received money/treatment assistance from the opposite party side, the court below held that the appellant had not approached the court with clean hands and that the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was not, prima facie, fit to be allowed. The application was accordingly rejected by the impugned order dated 19.04.2025. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds that trial court has committed material gross illegality by passing the impugned order and further, the trial court has overlooked the medical evidence which corroborates the averments as stated in the application. The order passed by the tile court is based upon surmise and conjunctures, and it should be set aside, and the application of the appellant should be allowed accordingly. 9. Learned A.G.A., and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, on the other CRLA No. 8887 of 2025 2 hand, have supported the impugned order, submitting that the appellant deliberately suppressed material facts regarding receipt of money and the alleged compromise from the court below, that this suppression alone disentitled him to any discretionary relief, and that the police report itself indicates a resolved dispute arising out of a workplace altercation. 10. Any compromise or receipt of money by the victim from the accused/his employer, outside the court and prior to registration of the F.I.R., is wholly without legal sanctity so far as the registration and investigation of a cognizable offence is concerned. A cognizable, non-compoundable offence does not stand extinguished merely because the victim has been paid money towards treatment or has been persuaded, in the interregnum, not to press a complaint; the right and the duty to have such an offence investigated in accordance with law is not a private right capable of being bartered away by a monetary settlement. 11. The medical report on record independently corroborates the occurrence of the assault and the injuries sustained by the appellant, and was itself available to and considered by the trial court its contents, read with the report of the Circle Officer/Investigating Officer submitted to the police authorities, were sufficient, prima facie, to disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. 12. At the stage of considering an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., the court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or weigh disputed questions such as recovery of the weapon or the precise sequence of events. The trial court has committed a manifest error of law in treating the alleged private settlement and the omission to mention it in the application as a ground to reject the prayer for registration of the F.I.R.. The trial court did not properly exercise the judicial discretion vested in it. Even if the court below was not inclined to issue a direction to the police to register and investigate the F.I.R. straightaway on account of the disputed questions raised by the police report, the settled procedure required the court below to treat the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. as a complaint and to proceed thereon as a complaint case in accordance with law, rather than dismissing the application outright and leaving the appellant without recourse. 13. So far as the question of a private compromise or receipt of money is concerned, it is well settled that registration of an F.I.R. is mandatory where CRLA No. 8887 of 2025 3 the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and no preliminary enquiry is contemplated in such cases. Cognizable and non- compoundable offence remains an offence against the State and society, and cannot be washed away merely because the victim has received money for his treatment or has been persuaded to refrain from lodging a report. Whatever may be the effect of such a settlement at the stage of sentencing, or as a circumstance going to the conduct of the informant, it furnishes no legal basis, by itself, to refuse the registration and investigation of a cognizable offence, or to non-suit an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. at the threshold. The finding of the court below, insofar as it treats the factum of an out-of-court settlement as dispositive of the application, therefore proceeds on an incorrect appreciation of the law. 14. The medical record placed on file, read with the report submitted by the Investigating Officer/Circle Officer to the police authorities, discloses a definite injury caused by a hard and blunt object, for which a CT scan and neurosurgical opinion were considered necessary. This medical evidence, at the stage of registration, was sufficient prima facie material disclosing a cognizable offence; it was not for the court below to discount this evidence on the ground of the subsequent conduct of the parties. 15. It is equally well settled that at the stage of considering an application of this nature, the court is not called upon to adjudicate disputed questions of fact such as recovery of the weapon of assault, the precise manner of occurrence, or the circumstances of the subsequent settlement, even assuming that the trial court was, for the reasons recorded by it, disinclined to issue a direction to the police for registration and investigation of the F.I.R., the law is well settled that the Magistrate/court concerned is not thereby absolved of further duty in the matter. where a Magistrate does not consider it appropriate to direct the police to register and investigate a cognizable offence on an application of this nature, the proper course is to treat such application as a complaint and proceed to deal with it as a complaint case in accordance with law, rather than to dismiss it outright, leaving the informant without any remedy. The trial court, by rejecting the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. simpliciter, without considering this alternative course available to it, has failed to properly exercise the judicial discretion vested in it and has thereby committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record. CRLA No. 8887 of 2025 4 16. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.2882 of 2024 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 17. The appeal is allowed. 18. The impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2882 of 2024 is hereby set aside. 19. The trial court is directed to register the application dated 09.12.2024, filed under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., as a complaint, and to proceed with the same as a complaint case in accordance with law, including examination of the appellant and his witnesses under the relevant provisions applicable to complaint cases, uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned order or in this order on the merits of the rival contentions. 20. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the allegations, the alleged compromise, or the defence of the opposite parties, all of which shall be examined by the trial court strictly in accordance with law at the appropriate stage. 21. A certified copy of this order be sent to the court concerned forthwith for compliance. September 9, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 8887 of 2025 5 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad