Awadh Narayan Shukla v. Ram Raj and others

registration of FIR against the petitioners has been allowed. A further prayer has been made for issuing a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of order dated 29.11.2025 passed in the aforesaid case.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that opposite party no.3 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 7.8.2023 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh and the court below sought a report from the Police Station concerned, which was given by the police on 18.6.2024 in which it was mentioned that civil dispute was pending between the parties. The said application was dismissed on

8.10.2024 and thereafter again on 18.3.2025, opposite party no.3 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. mentioning the same facts, which were mentioned in the earlier application, which was already dismissed. The 2 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025 Magistrate, without application of mind and without considering the entire facts of the case, sought a report from the Police Station concerned on

27.8.2025 and the police had given report on 5.10.2025 and mislead the court below. The impugned order dated 29.11.2025 for registration of FIR against the petitioners has been passed without application of mind.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions: (i) That the application which was submitted before the Police was not supported by an affidavit, therefore, the order is bad in law. (ii) That prior to passing the order for registration of FIR, treating the case as complaint case, police party must be heard by the court below, but the same was not done in the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon Paragraphs 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 35 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2025 INSC 139, which read as under: "28. However, before we part with the matter, we deem it necessary to discuss the changes brought to the scheme of Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. by the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”).

29. Section 175 of the BNSS corresponds to Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. Sub- section (1) of Section 175 of the BNSS is in pari materia with sub-section 156(1) of the Cr. P.C. except for the proviso which empowers the Superintendent of Police to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate a case if the nature or gravity of the case so requires. Sub-section (2) of Section 175 the BNSS is identical to Section 156(2) of the Cr. P.C. Section 175(3) of the BNSS empowers any Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under Section 210 to order investigation in accordance with Section 175(1) and to this extent is in pari materia with Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. However, unlike Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C., any Magistrate, before ordering investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, is required to: a. Consider the application, supported by an affidavit, made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) of the 3 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025 BNSS; b. Conduct such inquiry as he thinks necessary; and c. Consider the submissions made by the police officer.

30. Sub-section (4) of Section 175 of the BNSS is a new addition to the scheme of investigation of cognizable cases when compared with the scheme previously existing in Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. It provides an additional safeguard to a public servant against whom an accusation of committing a cognizable offence arising in the course of discharge of his official duty is made. The provision stipulates that any Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under Section 210 of the BNSS may order investigation against a public servant upon receiving a complaint arising in course of the discharge of his official duty, only after complying with the following procedure: a. Receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to the accused public servant; and b. Considering the assertions made by the accused public servant as regards the situation that led to the occurrence of the alleged incident.

31. A comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS as follows: a. First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3). b. Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR. c. Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an 4 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025 FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).

32. The introduction of these changes by the legislature can be attributed to the judicial evolution of Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. undertaken by a number of decisions of this Court. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287, this Court held that prior to making an application to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C., the applicant must necessarily make applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). It was further observed by the Court that applications made under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. must necessarily be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. The reason given by the Court for introducing such a requirement was that applications under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. were being made in a routine manner and in a number of cases only with a view to cause harassment to the accused by registration of FIR. It was further observed that the requirement of supporting the complaint with an affidavit would ensure that the person making the application is conscious and also to see that no false affidavit is made. Once an affidavit is found to be false, the applicant would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This would deter him from casually invoking the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). The relevant observations made by the Court are reproduced hereinbelow: “27. Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law, it needs to be reiterated that the learned Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. He has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. The present is a case where the accused persons are serving in high positions in the Bank. We are absolutely conscious that the position does not matter, for nobody is above the law. But, the learned Magistrate should take note of the allegations in entirety, the date of incident and whether any cognizable case is remotely made out. It is also to be noted that when a borrower of the financial institution covered under the Sarfaesi Act, invokes the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. and also there is a separate procedure under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, an attitude of more care, caution and circumspection has to be adhered to. 5 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025

28. Issuing a direction stating “as per the application” to lodge an FIR creates a very unhealthy situation in society and also reflects the erroneous approach of the learned Magistrate. It also encourages unscrupulous and unprincipled litigants, like Respondent 3, namely, Prakash Kumar Bajaj, to take adventurous steps with courts to bring the financial institutions on their knees. As the factual exposition would reveal, Respondent 3 had prosecuted the earlier authorities and after the matter is dealt with by the High Court in a writ petition recording a settlement, he does not withdraw the criminal case and waits for some kind of situation where he can take vengeance as if he is the emperor of all he surveys. It is interesting to note that during the tenure of Appellant 1, who is presently occupying the position of Vice- President, neither was the loan taken, nor was the default made, nor was any action under the SARFAESI Act taken. However, the action under the SARFAESI Act was taken on the second time at the instance of the present Appellant 1. We are only stating about the devilish design of Respondent 3 to harass the appellants with the sole intent to avoid the payment of loan. When a citizen avails a loan from a financial institution, it is his obligation to pay back and not play truant or for that matter play possum. As we have noticed, he has been able to do such adventurous acts as he has the embedded conviction that he will not be taken to task because an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is a simple application to the court for issue of a direction to the investigating agency. We have been apprised that a carbon copy of a document is filed to show the compliance with Section 154(3), indicating it has been sent to the Superintendent of Police concerned.

29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the Code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.

30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the 6 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025 Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.

31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari, [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” (Emphasis supplied)

33. .......

34. .......

35. Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer before proceeding to issue directions under 7 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025 Section 175(3), BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registering FIRs under Section 173. Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in Swarnalata Jena vs. State of Odisha and others (CRLMP No.1633 of 2024), decided on 3.2.2025.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has held that a comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS; firstly, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3); Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR; Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).

8. A careful ready of the judgment of Om Prakash Ambadkar (supra) shows that there is no requirement that the application given before the police party should have been supported by an affidavit, rather it is held by the Supreme Court that the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making an application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3), which indicates that the application under Section 175(3) is required to be supported by an affidavit. 8 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025

9. In the present case, it is admitted that the application filed under Section 175(3) is supported by an affidavit. Thus, the statutory requirement is complete.

10. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that police party must be heard is also not sustainable. The police had already forwarded the report to the concerned court and the concerned court has taken due consideration and thereafter, the order has been passed. The impugned order indicates that the complainant had filed the application under Section 175 supported by an affidavit, application given to the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh, copy of Aadhar Card and the receipt of postal registry. The requirement as envisaged under Section 175 of BNSS is fulfilled and the court below has passed the impugned order in accordance with law. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below.

11. The petition is dismissed. December 19, 2025 Sachin (Brij Raj Singh,J.) SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

registration of FIR against the petitioners has been allowed. A further prayer has been made for issuing a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of order dated 29.11.2025 passed in the aforesaid case.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that opposite party no.3 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 7.8.2023 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh and the court below sought a report from the Police Station concerned, which was given by the police on 18.6.2024 in which it was mentioned that civil dispute was pending between the parties. The said application was dismissed on

8.10.2024 and thereafter again on 18.3.2025, opposite party no.3 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. mentioning the same facts, which were mentioned in the earlier application, which was already dismissed. The 2 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025 Magistrate, without application of mind and without considering the entire facts of the case, sought a report from the Police Station concerned on

27.8.2025 and the police had given report on 5.10.2025 and mislead the court below. The impugned order dated 29.11.2025 for registration of FIR against the petitioners has been passed without application of mind.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions: (i) That the application which was submitted before the Police was not supported by an affidavit, therefore, the order is bad in law. (ii) That prior to passing the order for registration of FIR, treating the case as complaint case, police party must be heard by the court below, but the same was not done in the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon Paragraphs 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 35 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2025 INSC 139, which read as under: "28. However, before we part with the matter, we deem it necessary to discuss the changes brought to the scheme of Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. by the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”).

29. Section 175 of the BNSS corresponds to Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. Sub- section (1) of Section 175 of the BNSS is in pari materia with sub-section 156(1) of the Cr. P.C. except for the proviso which empowers the Superintendent of Police to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate a case if the nature or gravity of the case so requires. Sub-section (2) of Section 175 the BNSS is identical to Section 156(2) of the Cr. P.C. Section 175(3) of the BNSS empowers any Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under Section 210 to order investigation in accordance with Section 175(1) and to this extent is in pari materia with Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. However, unlike Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C., any Magistrate, before ordering investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, is required to: a. Consider the application, supported by an affidavit, made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) of the 3 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025 BNSS; b. Conduct such inquiry as he thinks necessary; and c. Consider the submissions made by the police officer.

30. Sub-section (4) of Section 175 of the BNSS is a new addition to the scheme of investigation of cognizable cases when compared with the scheme previously existing in Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. It provides an additional safeguard to a public servant against whom an accusation of committing a cognizable offence arising in the course of discharge of his official duty is made. The provision stipulates that any Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance under Section 210 of the BNSS may order investigation against a public servant upon receiving a complaint arising in course of the discharge of his official duty, only after complying with the following procedure: a. Receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to the accused public servant; and b. Considering the assertions made by the accused public servant as regards the situation that led to the occurrence of the alleged incident.

31. A comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS as follows: a. First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3). b. Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR. c. Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an 4 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025 FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).

32. The introduction of these changes by the legislature can be attributed to the judicial evolution of Section 156 of the Cr. P.C. undertaken by a number of decisions of this Court. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287, this Court held that prior to making an application to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C., the applicant must necessarily make applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). It was further observed by the Court that applications made under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. must necessarily be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. The reason given by the Court for introducing such a requirement was that applications under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. were being made in a routine manner and in a number of cases only with a view to cause harassment to the accused by registration of FIR. It was further observed that the requirement of supporting the complaint with an affidavit would ensure that the person making the application is conscious and also to see that no false affidavit is made. Once an affidavit is found to be false, the applicant would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This would deter him from casually invoking the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). The relevant observations made by the Court are reproduced hereinbelow: “27. Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law, it needs to be reiterated that the learned Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. He has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. The present is a case where the accused persons are serving in high positions in the Bank. We are absolutely conscious that the position does not matter, for nobody is above the law. But, the learned Magistrate should take note of the allegations in entirety, the date of incident and whether any cognizable case is remotely made out. It is also to be noted that when a borrower of the financial institution covered under the Sarfaesi Act, invokes the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. and also there is a separate procedure under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, an attitude of more care, caution and circumspection has to be adhered to. 5 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025

28. Issuing a direction stating “as per the application” to lodge an FIR creates a very unhealthy situation in society and also reflects the erroneous approach of the learned Magistrate. It also encourages unscrupulous and unprincipled litigants, like Respondent 3, namely, Prakash Kumar Bajaj, to take adventurous steps with courts to bring the financial institutions on their knees. As the factual exposition would reveal, Respondent 3 had prosecuted the earlier authorities and after the matter is dealt with by the High Court in a writ petition recording a settlement, he does not withdraw the criminal case and waits for some kind of situation where he can take vengeance as if he is the emperor of all he surveys. It is interesting to note that during the tenure of Appellant 1, who is presently occupying the position of Vice- President, neither was the loan taken, nor was the default made, nor was any action under the SARFAESI Act taken. However, the action under the SARFAESI Act was taken on the second time at the instance of the present Appellant 1. We are only stating about the devilish design of Respondent 3 to harass the appellants with the sole intent to avoid the payment of loan. When a citizen avails a loan from a financial institution, it is his obligation to pay back and not play truant or for that matter play possum. As we have noticed, he has been able to do such adventurous acts as he has the embedded conviction that he will not be taken to task because an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is a simple application to the court for issue of a direction to the investigating agency. We have been apprised that a carbon copy of a document is filed to show the compliance with Section 154(3), indicating it has been sent to the Superintendent of Police concerned.

29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the Code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.

30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the 6 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025 Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.

31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari, [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” (Emphasis supplied)

33. .......

34. .......

35. Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer before proceeding to issue directions under 7 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025 Section 175(3), BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registering FIRs under Section 173. Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in Swarnalata Jena vs. State of Odisha and others (CRLMP No.1633 of 2024), decided on 3.2.2025.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has held that a comparison of Section 175(3) of the BNSS with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., indicates three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS; firstly, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3); Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR; Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).

8. A careful ready of the judgment of Om Prakash Ambadkar (supra) shows that there is no requirement that the application given before the police party should have been supported by an affidavit, rather it is held by the Supreme Court that the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making an application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3), which indicates that the application under Section 175(3) is required to be supported by an affidavit. 8 CRLP No. 11867 of 2025

9. In the present case, it is admitted that the application filed under Section 175(3) is supported by an affidavit. Thus, the statutory requirement is complete.

10. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that police party must be heard is also not sustainable. The police had already forwarded the report to the concerned court and the concerned court has taken due consideration and thereafter, the order has been passed. The impugned order indicates that the complainant had filed the application under Section 175 supported by an affidavit, application given to the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh, copy of Aadhar Card and the receipt of postal registry. The requirement as envisaged under Section 175 of BNSS is fulfilled and the court below has passed the impugned order in accordance with law. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below.

11. The petition is dismissed. December 19, 2025 Sachin (Brij Raj Singh,J.) SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench