HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7622 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 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 25.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Pilibhit in Application No.130 of 2025, under Sections 173 (4) BNSS, Police Station Neuriya, District Pilibhit whereby the application of the appellant under Sections 173 (4) BNSS seeking a direction for registration of the FIR has been rejected. 3. The case of the appellant, as set out in her application, is that she belongs to Khatik (Harijan) caste and she married with one Deepak Lodhi. It is further alleged that her maternal uncle-in-law Virendra had evil intentions towards her. On 18.02.2025 at around 07:00 PM when she was alone in her house, the opposite party nos.2 and 5 entered in her house and both of them kept a knife on her chest and forcefully committed rape upon her one by one. On hearing the noise, Rameshwar Dayal and Lakshmi came from outside, then accused locked both of them in a room. It is further alleged that accused persons have also assaulted Rameshwar Dayal @ Pappu with brick due to which Rameshwar Dayal alias Pappu fell unconscious. It is further alleged that the said brick broken and hit the head of the appellant also, causing severe head injury to her, thereafter, the said accused persons fled away from the spot giving threat to kill her and her family members. Accused persons have also abused her by caste related word/. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Gayatri Sonkar .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The learned Court, however, upon obtaining a police enquiry report, found that there was previous enmity regaridng partiiton of land between the parties and the incident has been exaggerated to crerat controversy. On that basis, court below found that no cognizable case can be made out against the opposite party and rejected the application of the appellant. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the appeal but does not dispute the settled 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 victim has specifically alleged that the opposite party nos.2 to 5 entered in the house of the appellant and committed maarpeet with her and also forcibly committed rape upon her, which clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as the SC/ST Act. The rejection of the application under Section 173 (4) CRLA No. 7622 of 2025 2 BNSS by treating the police enquiry report as conclusive is contrary to law. Whether the incident is true or false is a matter for investigation and trial. The rejection of the application on the basis of the police enquiry and previous animosity between the parties is, thus, unsustainable in law. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 225.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pilibhit, is hereby 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. 12. With the above observations/directions, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. September 17, 2025 Ajeet CRLA No. 7622 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad