Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1179 Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11754 of 2024 Applicant :- Aman Preet Kaur @ Aman Preet Kaur Sanhotra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Gupta,Prashant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for respondent State. The present application has been filed by the applicant assailing the impugned order dated 12.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.115737 of 2024 filed by the applicant under Section 174(3) BNSS 2023 whereby preliminary inquiry was directed to be conducted by the police and has sought a report from the concerned Police Station within seven days' in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. reported in 2014(1) SCC (Crl) 524. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the Magistrate could not have passed this order. The order has been passed without application of mind. He submits that no reasons have been given by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order. He further submits that the applicant is the complainant. The complaint is still pending. He submits that the Magistrate has ample power to seek a report from the police or to direct preliminary enquiry to be conducted or investigation to be conducted by the Magistrate. The present case comes in the category 'e' (cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay) of the judgement of Lalita (supra). It is submitted by the learned A.G.A. for the respondent State that at this stage the complainant has no locus to challenge the impugned order. It cannot be said that he is a aggrieved party as no final order has been passed in the complaint. Perused the record. Perusal of the record shows that the offence is alleged to have been committed in January 2022 and complaint admittedly has been filed in the year 2024. There is approximately delay of two years. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) has directed the preliminary enquiry to be conducted in certain category of cases. This case clearly comes under the category 'e'. Whether there is ordinary delay in initiating criminal proceedings. Nowhere in the complaint or even during the course of the hearing it has been stated by learned counsel for the applicant that as to what steps he has taken immediately after the alleged offence was committed in the year 2022. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, so also the impugned order it cannot be said that any right of the applicant has been infringed as vide the impugned order only preliminary inquiry is directed to conducted by the concerned police that too in the light of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita (supra). The petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench