HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8374 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant in person through video conferencing, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred for quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 05.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut in Case No. 25 of 2025, under Section 173(4) BNSS, whereby the application was allowed and the same was treated as complaint. 3. It appears that an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C./173(4) BNSS was moved by the appellant before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Fatehpur. After considering the material on record, trial court ordered the registration of case as complaint case. The matter was fixed for recording of the evidence under section 223 BNSS. This order is under challenge in the present criminal appeal. 4. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the order impugned, in the present application, has been passed after considering entire facts and evidence on record which suffers from no illegality or infirmity in law and calls no interference by this Court. 5. Learned A.G.A. has relied upon a Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that caution should be exercised by the High Court in the matter which relates to non- Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anita Yadav, Praveen Rahi, Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Praveen Rahi, Advocate .....Appellant(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary(Home Department) And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) registration of first information report or improper investigation. 6. Learned A.G.A. has also referred a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2007 (59) ACC 739 wherein this Court has held that the Magistrate is not bound to order registration of a first information report in all cases where a cognizable offence has been disclosed and the Magistrate has authority to treat it as complaint. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in Sukhwasi versus State of U.P. 2007 (59) SSC 739 has held as under :- " For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the Magistrate is not always bound to pass an order for register of the case and investigation after receipt of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosing a cognizable offence. The Magistrate may use his discretion judiciously and if he is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, it will be proper to treat the application as a complaint case then he may proceed according to the procedure provided under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. I am also of the opinion that it is not always mandatory in each and every case for the Magistrate to pass an order to register and investigate on receipt of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the present case, the Magistrate is perfectly within the judicial power to treat the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order. The revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed." 8. The Learned trial Judge, after perusing the documents and evidence on records submitted by the appellant directed that the same may be treated as complaint case. The discretion of the Magistrate to decide the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C./173(4) BNSS, cannot be taken away. Thus, this Court is of the view that the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity of law, which may warrant any interference by this Court. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. September 17, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 8374 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad