HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40745 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/first informant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. The instant application has been preferred for seeking quashing of order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Agra in Case No.13565 of 2024 (State vs. Gaurav Shukla and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.47 of 2024, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 IPC, P.S. Fatehpur Sikri, District- Agra. 3. Brief facts of the case is that initially an FIR dated 04.03.2024 being Case Crime No.47 of 2024 has been lodged by the applicant against opposite party nos.2 to 10 with an allegation that they have done maar-peet with his son, namely, Ankit Srivastav, who got seriously injured in the alleged incident, over which applicant had also approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8442 of 2024 regarding fair investigation of the instant FIR, wherein Division Bench of this Court directed the applicant/petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned for monitoring the investigation as per judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., LAWS(SC)-2007-12-69 vide order dated 29.05.2024. 4. Meanwhile, charge-sheet has been submitted by concerned Investigating Officer on dated 11.04.2024, wherein name of the victim has not been mentioned in the charge-sheet and he has also not been made a witness in the charge-sheet. Thereafter, applicant approached the learned court concerned Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Prakash Rawat Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dwijendra Prasad, Pradyumna Kumar, G.A. Ram Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 9 Others .....Opposite Party(s) and moved an application under section 173(8) Cr.P.C./193(3) BNSS for further investigation of the present case, which was rejected by learned Magistrate vide order dated 04.07.2024. Aggrieved with the above order, applicant approached this Court by way of filing Application u/s 528 BNSS No.27530 of 2025, in which co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.08.2025 rejected the impugned order and remanded the matter back to learned Magistrate concerned to pass an order on the application of applicant afresh with following observation :- "6. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that applicant is informant of the case and after investigation police have submitted charge sheet against accused persons. The informant has moved an application before the learned Trial court for further investigation by alleging that one of the injured, namely, Ankit Srivastava has not been cited as witness in the charge sheet. That application has been rejected by the learned Trial court merely on the ground that the said application was not forwarded by the Public Prosecutor. As applicant is informant of the case thus, he was competent to move an application for further investigation. Learned Trial court committed error by not deciding the said application of applicant on merits." 5. Thereafter, the applicant approached the learned court concerned in compliance of order dated 28.08.2025 passed by this Court, but the application of applicant preferred under section 173(8) Cr.P.C./ 193(3) BNSS was again rejected vide order dated 19.09.2025 by learned court concerned, which impugned the present application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that order impugned passed by learned court concerned is without applying his judicial mind and passed in a routine manner, wherein facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence on records has also not been considered. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the concerned Investigating Officer with the collusion of accused and without proper investigation preferred charge- sheet, wherein injured/victim/son of the applicant, namely, Ankit Srivastav, who is the main witness of the present case, whose name is not cited as witness in the charge-sheet by concerned Investigating Officer and as such the charge-sheet preferred is not acceptable and the prayer of the applicant to further investigate the instant case is just and right in the eye of law. Hence, the order impugned passed by learned court concerned is liable to be set- NA528 No. 40745 of 2025 2 aside. 7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer as made through instant application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant by way of supporting the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned court concerned, but at the same time, they did not dispute the fact that the son of the applicant, who was not cited as witness in the charge-sheet, is the main witness and only injured of the alleged incident, which has been demonstrated through narration of FIR as well as injury report of the injured, Ankit Srivastav. 8. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties as well as considering the order impugned, this Court finds that the injured/victim, namely, Ankit Srivastav is the main witness of the alleged incident and as such, it is necessary to put the said victim as witness in the charge-sheet. 9. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, without interfering in the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Agra in Case No.13565 of 2024 (State vs. Gaurav Shukla and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.47 of 2024, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 IPC, P.S. Fatehpur Sikri, District- Agra, the learned trial court is hereby directed to endorse the victim, namely, Ankit Srivastava being injured as one of the prosecution witnesses during trial. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the instant application stands disposed of. March 19, 2026 Saif NA528 No. 40745 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad