[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C528/368/2026 on 12 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1639
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528 No.368 of 2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Shariq Khurshid, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State
of Uttarakhand.
2. Present criminal miscellaneous
application has been filed seeking quashing
of the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur,
District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc.
Criminal Case No.300 of 2024, whereby the
application preferred by the applicant under
Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. for a
direction to lodge the F.I.R. was rejected.
The applicant has also challenged the order
dated 31.10.2025 passed by learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District
Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision
No.33 of 2025, whereby the revision
preferred against the aforesaid order was
dismissed.
3. According to the applicant, she had
submitted an application dated 30.11.2024
before the S.H.O., Police Station I.T.I.,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar as
well as before the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Udham Singh Nagar making
allegations against respondent no.2. It is
contended that since no F.I.R. was
registered on the basis of the said
application, the applicant filed an application
under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. before
the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate,
Kashipur seeking a direction to the police
authorities to register the F.I.R. The learned
Magistrate, however, rejected the said
application vide order dated 19.03.2025.
Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant
preferred Criminal Revision No.33 of 2025,
2026:UHC:1639
which too came to be dismissed by the
learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar vide
order dated 31.10.2025. Hence, the present
criminal miscellaneous application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the learned Courts below have
acted illegally in refusing to direct
registration of the F.I.R. despite the fact
that the application filed by the applicant
disclosed commission of cognizable
offences. It is argued that it is a settled
proposition of law that whenever a
complaint discloses commission of a
cognizable offence, registration of the F.I.R.
is mandatory and the police authorities are
not permitted to conduct a preliminary
inquiry into the truthfulness of the
allegations. It is further submitted that both
the learned Magistrate as well as the
Revisional Court have exceeded their
jurisdiction by relying upon the report
submitted by the police authorities and by
evaluating the veracity of the allegations
made by the applicant, which exercise is
impermissible at the stage of consideration
of an application under Section 175(3) of
the B.N.S.S.
5. I have considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicant and have perused the material
available on record, including the orders
passed by the learned Courts below.
6. From a perusal of the order passed by
the learned Magistrate, it transpires that the
Magistrate had called for a report from the
concerned police authorities and upon
consideration of the said report as well as
the allegations made in the application,
came to the conclusion that no ground was
made out for issuing a direction for
registration of the F.I.R. The learned
Magistrate has exercised the discretion
vested in him while dealing with an
application under Section 175(3) of the
2026:UHC:1639
B.N.S.S. It is well settled that the power of
the Magistrate under the said provision is
discretionary in nature and the Magistrate is
not bound to mechanically direct registration
of an F.I.R. in every case. The Magistrate is
competent to apply his judicial mind to the
facts of the case and to examine whether
the circumstances warrant exercise of such
power.
7. The Revisional Court, while considering
the challenge to the order of the learned
Magistrate, has re-examined the material
available on record and has concurred with
the findings recorded by the Magistrate. The
Revisional Court has rightly observed that
no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error
could be pointed out in the order passed by
the learned Magistrate which may warrant
interference in revisional jurisdiction.
8. In the present case, the applicant has
failed to demonstrate that the orders passed
by the learned Courts below suffer from any
manifest illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error. The impugned orders
reflect due application of judicial mind and
do not call for interference in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction.
9. Accordingly, the present criminal
miscellaneous application being devoid of
merit is liable to be dismissed and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
12.03.2026
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20d
ddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
JAISWAL
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB9
87446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.03.12 16:26:46 +05'30'
