2026:UHC:2243 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No. 215 of 2026 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 47 of 2026 ‘Shekhar Valmiki vs. Piyush Bhatia’. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that an application was moved by the revisionist under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 with the allegations that the respondent abused the revisionist while service notice upon him with regard to encroaching over land, which is identified as green belt. 4. It is also alleged that the respondent abused with caste related remarks and the incident was happened in the presence of one supervisor namely Pawan Kumar and when he intervened he was humiliated by the respondent. 5. It is further contended that before moving an application under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023, a written complaint was also made to the police station, Pant Nagar, for lodging an FIR but no action has been taken and thereafter he reported to the S.S.P., Udham Singh Nagar, but no attempt was made, consequently he moved an application under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023. 6. While entertaining the aforesaid application the learned Special Sessions 2026:UHC:2243 Judge invited the report from the concerned Police Station, Pant Nagar, and after gone through with the report the application was rejected by giving reason that the revisionist infact on the behest of one Vikrant Futela filed this application who have some dispute with the respondent. 7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that while entertaining the application under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023, the learned Magistrate should consider only the allegations as alleged in the application, which apparently discloses the commission of cognizable offence. 8. He also submits that on the application the FIR has to be registered in view of the principle as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari. 9. I perused the order impugned as well as the application moved by the revisionist under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023, and this court is of the view that the learned Special Sessions Judge after gone through the report from the concerned police station rightly rejected the application. The revisionist is under the revisional jurisdiction challenging the order passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, however, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge and, hence, the instant revision is dismissed being devoid of merit. 10. No order as to costs. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 31.03.2026 PR 2026:UHC:2243