HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9874 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard Shri Vivek Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 15.06.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Prayagraj in Misc. Case/Application No.586 of 2026, Police Station- Sarai Memrej, District- Prayagraj, by which the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 173(4) BNSS has been treated into complaint. 3. An application under Section 173(4) was moved by the complainant, namely Saroj Vikas, against the accused persons, namely Yuvraj Singh, Shakti Singh, Satish Singh, Kevala Prasad and Satish Mishra. The allegation against the accused persons is that they caused injuries to the complainant and also hurled caste-based abuses at him. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had specifically approached the court below under Section 173(4) BNSS seeking registration of an FIR and investigation into the cognizable offences allegedly committed by the opposite parties. It is submitted that the allegations disclose cognizable offences and involve matters requiring collection of evidence through police investigation, which could not effectively be undertaken by the appellant himself as a complainant. The learned court below, without properly considering the nature of the allegations and the necessity of police investigation, has mechanically Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shiva Ji, Vivek Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Saroj Vikash .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) treated the application as a complaint case. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order dated 15.06.2026 is liable to be set aside and the matter be directed to be dealt with in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the allegations and the material placed before the court below. The allegations are primarily within the personal knowledge of the appellant and the relevant evidence can be produced by him in a complaint case. It is further submitted that no exceptional circumstance has been shown warranting police investigation and that the learned court below has rightly exercised its discretion in treating the application as a complaint case. The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the averments made in the application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS, the learned trial court, in the light of the relevant case law referred to in the impugned order, treated the application as a complaint. It is settled that the Special Court/Magistrate is not bound to direct registration of an FIR in every case merely on the filing of an application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS. Where the material facts are within the specific knowledge of the complainant and the allegations can be appropriately dealt with by treating the application as a complaint, the court is not required to mechanically direct registration of an FIR. In the present case, the learned trial court has considered the allegations and the material on record, applied its judicial mind, and, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, rightly treated the application as a complaint. No illegality or infirmity is therefore found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Thus, having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the material and evidence available on record, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has rightly treated the application of the appellant filed under Section 173(4) BNSS as a complaint. The impugned order dated 15.06.2026 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. CRLA No. 9874 of 2026 2 8. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. 9. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge, Prayagraj within 48 hours. September 29, 2026 Ankit. CRLA No. 9874 of 2026 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad