HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8581 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. The present application has been filed with the following prayers - “For the facts reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2025 passed by Sessions Judge Ayodhya in Criminal Revision No. 184/2025, Ram Singh Maurya and others V/s State of U.P. and another, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this affidavit, in the interest of justice. It further prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the court concern to upheld the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Ayodhya, Case No.9910/2016 " State V/s Ram Lakhan and others", Crime No.371/2007, Under section-419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Poorakalandar, District-Ayodhya and take the documentary evidence on record (as contained in Annexure No.2 to this affidavit), in the interest of justice." 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Meena Maurya .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that certain documents relating to revenue records were not available at the time of investigation. Therefore, the same could not be given to the investigating officer. After the prosecution's evidence, an application was moved by the informant/complainant, under section 91, read with section 311, CrPC, for taking the documents on record. The said application was allowed, with a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The aforesaid order was challenged before the revision court, which was set aside with the direction to the learned court below to pass a fresh order. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that there was no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate for taking these pieces of evidence on record. He vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that the impugned order itself reveals that an earlier application was moved by the applicant on 28/11/2024 for providing an opportunity to file certain documentary evidence, but the said application was rejected on 21/12/2024, and a revision was filed, which was also rejected by the revisional court on 1/2/2025, but all these facts were not considered and the matter was remanded, considering the contents of the impugned order as well as the relevant material. 5. It is evident that the revisional court has remanded the matter to the trial court for passing a fresh order on the application of the applicant in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no occasion to interfere at this stage. Accordingly, this application is hereby disposed of with liberty to the applicant to pursue the application before the trial court for its disposal in accordance with law. October 17, 2025 A.Nigam A482 No. 8581 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench