HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2371 of 2026 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. on the point of admission. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Varanasi in Case No. 4452 of 2025 (Anurag Singham Vs. Deepak Sopra and others), under Section 173(4) BNSS, Police station Kotwali, District Varanasi. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 committed marpeet with lathi danda and inflicted injury to Sarswati Devi while making trespass on the property in dispute regarding which there is civil litigation pending before the learned civil court. The injured Sarswati Devi became unconscious and was taken to the hospital where her injuries were examined. The assailants took with them two bags and Rs. 50,000/- those were placed there for expenses and also snatched mangal sutra and bangles from Sarswati Devi. An application was given at the police station but no action was taken then information in this regard was sent to the Police Commissioner, Varanasi through registered post even though no action was taken as a result an application under Section 173(4) was BNSS filed before the learned trial court which was treated as complaint vide order dated 24.02.2026. Further submitted that from the contents of the application, cognizance offence is made out, therefore, learned trial court must have directed the police to register the case and make investigation but by treating it as complaint, the learned trial Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anil Kumar Rai, Rishi Kant Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anurag Singhal Alias Anurag Singham .....Revisionist(s) State Of Up And 7 Others .....Opposite Party(s) court has committed error, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and allow the revision and to direct the police station concerned to lodge an F.I.R. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that since all the facts of the incident are in the knowledge of the revisionist and no any recovery or search is required to be made by the police. There is civil litigation between the parties regarding property in dispute. The learned trial court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and then passed the order in question. Even on disclosure of cognizable offence from the contents of the application, the learned trial court may treat the application as complaint. There is no bar and he is not duty bound to get it registered as F.I.R. There is no any illegality in the order dated 24.02.2026. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record, contents of application under Section 173(4) BNSS and order passed by learned trial court dated 24.02.2026, since all the facts are in the knowledge of the revisionist and no recovery or search is to be made by the police, therefore, the learned trial court has treated the application as complaint following the law as settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Sukhwasi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2007 LawSuit (All) 290 decided on 18 September, 2007. It is also to note that the learned trial court has power under Section 202 Cr.P.C./225 BNSS to get the matter investigated if circumstances so require. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. May 7, 2026 Anurag Singh CRLR No. 2371 of 2026 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad