Pramod Kumar Shukla v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA for the State, Sri Dharmesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Rajendra Prasad Lodhi, Advocate, who has filed his Power today on behalf of opposite party nos.3 and 4, which is taken on record.

2. The facts, in short, are that on 10.12.2024, an altercation took place between the applicant and opposite party no.3 and his family, in pursuance of which, opposite party no.3 got an FIR registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS, 2023, Police Station Nanpara, District Bahraich. On 12.12.2024 at around 10 a.m., police officials of Police Station Nanpara, Bahraich, summoned the applicant regarding the altercation which took place on 10.12.2024 and informed him that opposite party nos.3 and 4 are present in the said police station and it would be in the best interest of the applicant as well as opposite party nos.3 and 4 that the dispute may be amicably resolved. On reaching the said police station, the applicant and his son were arrested under Section 170 of BNSS and thereafter at around 3:00 p.m., they have been challaned under Sections 126 and 135 of BNSS. The applicant and his son were taken to the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, 2 NA528 No. 1769 of 2025 Nanpara, District Bahraich and at around 7:00 p.m., the Sub Divisional Magistrate came to the chamber and thereafter, opposite party nos.3 and 4 along with two unknown persons also entered the chamber of Sub Divisional Magistrate. The applicant and his son were called in the chamber of Sub Divisional Magistrate and upon entering the chamber, opposite party nos.3 and 4 as well as two unnamed persons started abusing the applicant and his son and thereafter all five of them started attacking on the applicant and his son and had beaten them physically. Thereafter, opposite party nos.3 and 4 along with two unnamed persons went out and then the Sub Divisional Magistrate demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- from the applicant with the condition that in case such an amount is given, the applicant would be released. However, the applicant and his son were sent to the police custody and were asked to execute bond and sureties. Two sureties of Rs.2 lacs each were directed to be furnished, that is total amounting to Rs.8 lacs.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the surety of such a huge amount indicates that how the Sub Divisional Magistrate was inimical to the applicants. The applicant tried to lodge FIR and an application in this regard was also given to the police, but no FIR was lodged. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an application on 18.12.2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich apprising him about the aforesaid facts. However, when nothing was done, the applicant moved an application under Section 173(4) of BNSS before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich for registering the FIR. It has been submitted that on the application given by the applicant, the Chief Judicial Magistrate called a report from the A.D.M., Bahraich, who sent the report on 26.3.2025 and on the basis of the said report as well as considering the other materials, the application moved by the applicant has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is also an allegation of maar-peet against the private opposite parties and a report is required under Section 175(3) of BNSS from the police, but in the present case, the court below has made compliance of Section 175(4) of BNSS only, which is in respect of the official who had discharged his duties. Of course, the said procedure could have been right, had it been a case of maar-peet only against the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, but in the present case, there is allegation of maar-peet by two private persons, therefore, it 3 NA528 No. 1769 of 2025 was incumbent upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate to call for a report from the police under Section 175(3) of BNSS, which is missing in the present case.

5. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations made in the application are serious and the same also involves moral turpitude as well as offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned has rejected the application of the applicant without application of mind and without considering the legal provisions as envisaged under Section 175(3) of BNSS. He further submits that the revisional court has also not considered the legal as well as factual aspect and has rejected the revision vide order dated 9.10.2025.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties nos.2, 3 and 4 have submitted that the court below has considered the report of the A.D.M., Bahraich and after going through the record, the court below has come to the conclusion that the applicants were asked to execute bond and sureties to maintain law and order. Learned counsel further submit that the applicant was trying to falsely implicate the answering respondents just to settle his personal score.

7. Learned AGA has also pointed out that the provision of Section 174(1) is also violated in the present case.

8. Be that as it may, the scheme of Section 175(3) of BNSS indicates that the report/enquiry is to be done by the police, for which report is to be called by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Though the report under Section 175(4) of BNSS was called, but at the same time, for the maar-peet, which took place between the applicant and two private opposite parties, certainly the report was to be called in view of Section 175(3) of BNSS. Sections 175(3) and 175(4) of BNSSS read as under:

175. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case-(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of Section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as 4 NA528 No. 1769 of 2025 above-mentioned. (4) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 210, may, upon receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, order investigation, subject to- (a) receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him; and (b) after consideration of the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged."

9. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual aspects, the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore, both the impugned orders dated 17.4.2025 and

9.10.2025 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, who will look into the matter and take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved parties, within a period of eight weeks from today.

10. The application stands allowed. December 11, 2025 Sachin (Brij Raj Singh,J.) SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA for the State, Sri Dharmesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Rajendra Prasad Lodhi, Advocate, who has filed his Power today on behalf of opposite party nos.3 and 4, which is taken on record.

2. The facts, in short, are that on 10.12.2024, an altercation took place between the applicant and opposite party no.3 and his family, in pursuance of which, opposite party no.3 got an FIR registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS, 2023, Police Station Nanpara, District Bahraich. On 12.12.2024 at around 10 a.m., police officials of Police Station Nanpara, Bahraich, summoned the applicant regarding the altercation which took place on 10.12.2024 and informed him that opposite party nos.3 and 4 are present in the said police station and it would be in the best interest of the applicant as well as opposite party nos.3 and 4 that the dispute may be amicably resolved. On reaching the said police station, the applicant and his son were arrested under Section 170 of BNSS and thereafter at around 3:00 p.m., they have been challaned under Sections 126 and 135 of BNSS. The applicant and his son were taken to the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, 2 NA528 No. 1769 of 2025 Nanpara, District Bahraich and at around 7:00 p.m., the Sub Divisional Magistrate came to the chamber and thereafter, opposite party nos.3 and 4 along with two unknown persons also entered the chamber of Sub Divisional Magistrate. The applicant and his son were called in the chamber of Sub Divisional Magistrate and upon entering the chamber, opposite party nos.3 and 4 as well as two unnamed persons started abusing the applicant and his son and thereafter all five of them started attacking on the applicant and his son and had beaten them physically. Thereafter, opposite party nos.3 and 4 along with two unnamed persons went out and then the Sub Divisional Magistrate demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- from the applicant with the condition that in case such an amount is given, the applicant would be released. However, the applicant and his son were sent to the police custody and were asked to execute bond and sureties. Two sureties of Rs.2 lacs each were directed to be furnished, that is total amounting to Rs.8 lacs.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the surety of such a huge amount indicates that how the Sub Divisional Magistrate was inimical to the applicants. The applicant tried to lodge FIR and an application in this regard was also given to the police, but no FIR was lodged. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an application on 18.12.2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich apprising him about the aforesaid facts. However, when nothing was done, the applicant moved an application under Section 173(4) of BNSS before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich for registering the FIR. It has been submitted that on the application given by the applicant, the Chief Judicial Magistrate called a report from the A.D.M., Bahraich, who sent the report on 26.3.2025 and on the basis of the said report as well as considering the other materials, the application moved by the applicant has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is also an allegation of maar-peet against the private opposite parties and a report is required under Section 175(3) of BNSS from the police, but in the present case, the court below has made compliance of Section 175(4) of BNSS only, which is in respect of the official who had discharged his duties. Of course, the said procedure could have been right, had it been a case of maar-peet only against the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, but in the present case, there is allegation of maar-peet by two private persons, therefore, it 3 NA528 No. 1769 of 2025 was incumbent upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate to call for a report from the police under Section 175(3) of BNSS, which is missing in the present case.

5. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations made in the application are serious and the same also involves moral turpitude as well as offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned has rejected the application of the applicant without application of mind and without considering the legal provisions as envisaged under Section 175(3) of BNSS. He further submits that the revisional court has also not considered the legal as well as factual aspect and has rejected the revision vide order dated 9.10.2025.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties nos.2, 3 and 4 have submitted that the court below has considered the report of the A.D.M., Bahraich and after going through the record, the court below has come to the conclusion that the applicants were asked to execute bond and sureties to maintain law and order. Learned counsel further submit that the applicant was trying to falsely implicate the answering respondents just to settle his personal score.

7. Learned AGA has also pointed out that the provision of Section 174(1) is also violated in the present case.

8. Be that as it may, the scheme of Section 175(3) of BNSS indicates that the report/enquiry is to be done by the police, for which report is to be called by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Though the report under Section 175(4) of BNSS was called, but at the same time, for the maar-peet, which took place between the applicant and two private opposite parties, certainly the report was to be called in view of Section 175(3) of BNSS. Sections 175(3) and 175(4) of BNSSS read as under:

175. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case-(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of Section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as 4 NA528 No. 1769 of 2025 above-mentioned. (4) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 210, may, upon receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, order investigation, subject to- (a) receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him; and (b) after consideration of the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged."

9. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual aspects, the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore, both the impugned orders dated 17.4.2025 and

9.10.2025 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, who will look into the matter and take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved parties, within a period of eight weeks from today.

10. The application stands allowed. December 11, 2025 Sachin (Brij Raj Singh,J.) SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench