HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1381 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. The present petition has been filed with the following main prayer: "It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 12/06/2025, contained as Annexure No. 1, passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 468 of 2025, State v. Jagsav Singh and others, in Case Crime Number 44 of 2025 under sections 3(5), 115(2), 333, 351(2) and 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (34, 323, 452, 506, 504 IPC), Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sitapur, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur." 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Thereafter, investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer, and a police report was submitted to the court concerned. Later on, the informant again moved an application with the request for re-investigation. Considering contents of the application, the learned Magistrate passed an order for further investigation. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that no fresh material was available, and, therefore, the learned court below committed an error in passing the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manish Mani Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Lakhjeet Singh @ Lakkha And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) impugned order. In fact, the impugned order cannot be passed by the learned Magistrate, therefore, the kind indulgence of this court is necessary. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that the learned court below considered the entire material available in the case diary and, thereafter, came to the conclusion that further investigation is necessary. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. He also submitted that at this stage, the accused persons have no right to interfere in the order of investigation. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition, as well as the impugned order, as the FIR of the case in question was lodged by the private respondent, and, after investigation, a police report was submitted. However, the informant was not satisfied with the investigation, as well as the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, therefore, he filed an application for re-investigation, which was considered, and, after evaluating the contents of the material available in the case diary, as well as the contents of the application filed by the informant, the learned court below has passed the order for further investigation, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the petition is misconceived. The same is hereby dismissed. . 7. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation in accordance with law expeditiously and file police report to court concerned. October 8, 2025 A.Nigam NA528 No. 1381 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench