HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6793 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ravesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party nos.2 to 7. 2. The present appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is directed against the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Etah in Complaint Case No.96 of 2025 under Section 173(4) BNSS, Police Station Jaithra, District Etah seeking a direction for registration and investigation of her complaint was rejected. 3. The case of the appellant, as set out in his application, is that on 14.03.2025 at about 09.00 PM when the appellant alongwith with his family members were returning at house then the accused persons with common intention surrounded him and forcibly caught him and threw colour and also tore his cloth and when the appellant protested, the accused persons allegedly humiliated him by using caste abusive language specifically "Koriya" and verbally abused him in front of other villagers. 4. The learned Court, however, upon obtaining a police enquiry report, finds that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons as there were inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 223 and 225 BNSS. On that basis, it concluded that no cognizable offence was made out, therefore, rejected the application under Section 173 (4) BNSS filed by the appellant. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the appeal but does not dispute the settled Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ravesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Avneesh Pratap .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) legal position that once cognizable offences are disclosed, registration of FIR is mandatory. 6. Upon hearing rival submissions and perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge dismissed the application under Section 173(4) BNSS essentially on the basis of a police enquiry report and prior litigations between the parties. 7. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 has authoritatively held that where information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, registration of FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is mandatory, and no preliminary enquiry is ordinarily permissible, except in certain limited categories (such as matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, etc.). 8. Further, in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287, the Supreme Court emphasised that an application under Section 173(4) BNSS must be supported by an affidavit to prevent abuse of process, but once such affidavit is filed and cognizable offences are disclosed, the Magistrate cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction merely by relying upon police enquiries or collateral considerations. 9. The settled legal position, therefore, is that while safeguards against frivolous litigation exist, the test at the stage of Section 173(4) BNSS is whether the allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. The veracity of the allegations and rival versions are matters for investigation and trial. 10. In the present case, the allegations of assault and caste-based abuses, if accepted at face value, clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as the SC/ST Act. The rejection of the application by treating the police enquiry report as conclusive is contrary to law. 11. In the instant case, the accused has brutally assaulted to the appellant due to which he has received as many as nine injuries which is annexed as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit and even the complainant in his statement under Section 223 BNSS has fully supported the prosecution story and has levelled specific allegation against the opposite party nos.2 to 7, which prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence, thus, the rejection CRLA No. 6793 of 2025 2 of the application on the basis of the police enquiry and previous animosity between the parties is unsustainable in law. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Etah, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below to reconsider the application under Section 173 (4) BNSS. afresh in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned order, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 13. With the above observations/directions, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. September 9, 2025 Ajeet CRLA No. 6793 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad