1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11086 Court No. - 13 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 936 of 2025 Petitioner :- Meena Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Afrin Bano Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya passed in Case No. 9910 of 2016 (State Vs. Ram Lakhan & Ors.) as well as the order dated 01.02.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Ayodhya in Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the daughter of the complainant of the case in question. During the course of trial, the complainant died, as a result of which, the petitioner is pursuing the case. It is further submitted that the trial was proceeded and statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.11.2024. Thereafter, on 28.11.2024, one application was moved before the trial court with the prayer that petitioner is the legal heir of the complainant and, therefore, she may be allowed to submit written documents, for which, she sought for sometime. However, the trial court rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 21.12.2024 in mechanical manner. The said order was challenged by means of Revision No. 26 of 2025, but the same was also wrongly dismissed by the revisional court. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasha Garg Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2022 AIR (SC) 3707 as well as decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Binod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (Criminal Revision No. 980 of 2023), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 91 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C., any documentary evidence can be considered by the trial court at 2 any stage of trial, if the same placed before the trial court. It is vehemently submitted that the trial court committed error in passing the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case. Drawing the attention of the Court towards application filed by the petitioner before the trial court on 28.11.2024, learned A.G.A. submits that no description of any document has been given in the said application and only time was sought from the court concerned. It is, thus, submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. It is, thus, submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the petition, impugned orders as well as other relevant documents including the application dated 28.11.2024 moved by the petitioner before the trial court, it is evident that the description of the alleged documents has not been given in the said application. The said application dated 28.11.2024 is as under : 3 6. As the aforesaid application categorically reveals that the description of the alleged document, which was to be placed before the trial court, is not mentioned by the petitioner and only time was sought. In view of above, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. 7. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 VKS Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench