HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14721 of 2026 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Fatehpur, in Criminal Case No. 08 of 2026 whereby application under Section 173 (4) of B.N.S.S., has been treated as a complaint case. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that informant's/applicant daughter became acquainted with the cousin devar of the applicant's sister as such the applicant;s daughter had gone with him on 19.12.2025 came to her house. On 23.12.2025 the accused- opposite party nos. 4 and 5 came to village and they enticed away the daughter of the informant to Kanpur and they resided there and physical relations were also established by the opposite party no.4, thereafter she was left at railway station. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 23.12.2025, thereafter the applicant tried to lodge the F.I.R., but her F.I.R. could not be lodged as such an application before the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur was sent through registered post, even then the F.I.R. could not be lodged. Thereafter on 07.01.2026, application under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S. has been filed however the same has been treated as a complaint case. Learned counsel further argued that perusal of the application goes to show that prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Puneet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ranno Devi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) accused-opposite parties but the learned Magistrate without considering the contents of application under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., has treated the same as a complaint case, which is illegal, arbitrary, without application of judicial mind and as such the same is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that the impugned order is perfectly legal just and proper which calls for no interference by this Court and therefore the impugned order is liable to be upheld by this Court. 5. It is well settled that before exercising jurisdiction under section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., the Magistrate is required to apply his mind and in case a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the direction for investigation by police may be issued. No doubt in appropriate cases, the Magistrate may decline to issue such direction and may reject the application filed under section173(4) of B.N.S.S., however, the jurisdiction under section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., has to be exercised judiciously considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case. In appropriate cases the magistrate can verify the veracity of allegations made in application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 6. In case of Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 2007 decided on 16.03.2015, while dealing with the exercise of power under Section 156(3) CrPC by the Magistrate, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: ".... the direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does not find it necessary to postpone instance of process and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction under the said provision is issued. In other words, where on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation, such a direction is issued. Cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed." 7. Keeping in view the settled position of law, it may be seen that in the NA528 No. 14721 of 2026 2 instant matter the conclusion of the court below that the allegation enticing away the daughter of the informant has been levelled against the accused-opposite parties and that the victim was kept by the opposite party no.4 in a room, thereafter, he left her at railway station/ It has also been alleged that when the police did not register a case, the applicant has made a complaint to S.P concerned but despite that the first information report was not registered. Thereafter the application under section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., was moved before the court below. Here it may be observed that while dealing with an application under section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., the nature of allegations has also to be kept in mind. In the instant matter there were allegations that a daughter of the informant has been enticed away. The applicant has named the accused-opposite parties in an application under section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., and in view of nature of allegation, it was quite desirable that the matter be investigated by the police, particularly due to the reason that the informant's daughter has been enticed away. 8. Considering the entire facts of the matter it is apparent that the court below has ignored the nature of allegations made in application under section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., and committed error by rejecting the application of applicant by merely observing that the allegations of applicant do not appear credible. Considering all the facts of the matter it appears quite desirable that matter be investigated by police. 9. In view of aforesaid the impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted back to the court below to pass an order afresh in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., is disposed of. April 20, 2026 S.Ali NA528 No. 14721 of 2026 3 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad