Allahabad High Court
Akshra Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 … on 30 June, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36779-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5582 of 2025 Petitioner :- Akshra Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Hon’ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the State-respondents.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had lodged a First Information Report on 14.06.2024 being F.I.R. No. 467 of 2024, under Sections 406, 323, 376, 506 of I.P.C. against one Bhupendra Verma. Subsequently, during investigation, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 164 CrPC, wherein it was stated that the saidF.I.R.was based on false facts and in fact the accused Bhupendra Verma did not misbehave or commit any offence upon the petitioner.
3. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that when the police report was submitted to the court of competent jurisdiction, by means of order dated 21.05.2025 C.J.M., Kheri taking into account that theF.I.R.has been written on false facts directed registration of theF.I.R.against the petitioner who was complainant of the previous First Information Report being F.I.R. No. 467 of 2024. It is in pursuance of the order of the C.J.M., Kheri dated 21.05.2025 that theF.I.R.No. 457 of 2025 dated 30.05.2025 has been lodged under Sections 217, 248(b) of B.N.S.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such an F.I.R. could not have been directed to have been registered as per the provisions of 215 B.N.S.S. He submits that only a complaint case could have been registered pertaining to any offence punishable under Sections 206 to 223 of B.N.S. and accordingly, assailed the validity of F.I.R. No. 457 of 2025.
5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the petition but has not disputed the aforesaid facts.
6. Considering the submissions, it is relevant to consider the provision of 215 of B.N.S.S. which is quoted herein below:-
“215. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 206 to 223 (both inclusive but excluding section 209) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate or of some other public servant who is authorised by the concerned public servant so to do;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, namely, sections 229 to 233 (both inclusive), 236, 237, 242 to 248 (both inclusive) and 267, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court; or
(ii) of any offence described in sub-section (1) of section 336, or punishable under sub-section (2) of section 340 or section 342 of the said Sanhita, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant or by some other public servant who has been authorised to do so by him under clause (a) of sub-section (1), any authority to which he is administratively subordinate or who has authorised such public servant, may, order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint:
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term “Court” means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the Principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate:
Provided that-
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.”
7. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the injunction has been made to exercise the power by the court pertaining to taking cognizance of certain offences as provided therein. The present offence of which the petitioner is accused, is Section 217 of B.N.S. which pertains to giving false information to a public servant in form of registering a first information report by the police and consequently, such action has been deemed to an offence and can be tried only on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned by some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
8. Accordingly, considering the specific provision of Section 215 B.N.S.S., cognizance of offence under Section 217 of B.N.S. can be taken only on a complaint and not on a police report. Therefore, the C.J.M., Kheri did not have any power to direct lodging of a first information report against the petitioner. We find that it is open for the C.J.M., Kheri to have recorded the aspect of registering the first information report on the basis of deliberate false information by the petitioner and have directed that the same be placed before the court concerned to initiate proceedings against the petitioner treating the said order to be a complaint which would have satisfied the conditions laid down inSection 215 of B.N.S.S.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that lodging of the First Information Report by the order of the C.J.M., Kheri dated 21.05.2025 is illegal and arbitrary and accordingly, the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 21.5.2025 and the consequential F.I.R. lodged cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, quashed.
10. The matter is remitted to the court of C.J.M., Kheri who is directed to pass fresh orders for proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law.
11. The office of the Government Advocate is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned for passing fresh orders with expedition in accordance with law.
12. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 30.6.2025
Shravan
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)