HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1817 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Case called out. None has appeared on behalf of informant / respondents . As per office report, notice has been served on informant/respondents; however, no one has appeared on behalf of informant / respondents to oppose the appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA for State. 3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.11.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj in Misc. Application No.349 of 2025 (Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs. Umesh and Others) in under section 173(4) Police station- Kotwali, District Maharajganj whereby the learned Special Judge has been rejected the application. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that his application under Section 173(4) BNSS was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on the ground that no injury report in support of the allegations was submitted by him. The Court also held that no application sent to the concerned SHO had been submitted by the appellant; rather, he had submitted an application to the concerned SSP. Learned counsel has further submitted that the impugned order is patently illegal and is contrary to the provisions of Section 173(4) BNSS. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA for the State, has submitted that the learned Trial Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pawan Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt Sumitra Devi .....Appellant(s) State Of Up And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. 7. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) is concerned, it is true that a direction was issued that, before filing an application under Section 173(4) BNSS, it is mandatory for the applicant to submit a copy of the complaint filed before the concerned SHO and a copy of the complaint submitted to the concerned Superintendent of Police ( SSP) after refusal by the SHO to register the FIR. However, the judgment in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) was passed in the year 2014. The provisions in the earlier Cr.P.C. relating to the registration of FIR, as well as the current provisions in BNSS, are virtually the same. It has been categorically provided that a person may either inform orally or submit an application regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. There may be cases where a person approaches the concerned SHO and makes an oral complaint. Once a complaint is made orally, it cannot be expected that a written application would necessarily be available to be filed before the Court at the time of filing an application under Section 173(4) BNSS. Moreover, the language of Section 173(4) BNSS is very clear. It provides as follows: ".....Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1), may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence, failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate." 8. The provision clearly states that a person aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the Officer-in-Charge of a police station may approach the concerned SSP. Such refusal may arise either upon submission of a written complaint or an oral complaint. Hence, an application under Section 173(4) BNSS cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that a written complaint submitted to the concerned SHO was not filed before the Court at the time of filing the application. 9. The learned Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that the appellant has not submitted any injury report to substantiate the allegation of assault by the respondent. The said finding is perverse. In cases of simple assault, it is not legally mandatory for a party to submit an injury CRLA No. 1817 of 2026 2 report. Moreover, the Court should not insist upon an injury report in cases involving allegations of simple assault. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court requires interference. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.11.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj, is set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order after considering the allegations mentioned in the application of the appellant. March 19, 2026 Mukesh CRLA No. 1817 of 2026 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad