Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74749 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5990 of 2025 Applicant :- Moti Lal Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1. 2. Perused the record. 3. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that notice of this application under Section 528 BNSS has been served upon first informant/opposite party-2 on 18.02.2025. However, in spite of service of notice, neither any counter affidavit has been filed by first informant/opposite party-2 in opposition to this application nor anyone has put in appearance on his behalf to oppose this application even in revised call. 4. It is then submitted by the learned A.G.A. that present application is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. Even though the present application under Section 528 BNSS arises out of the proceedings under the POCSO Act, yet the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad and the District Legal Services Authority have not been impeaded as party respondents in present application. In view of above, present application suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. Therefore the same is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 5. Learned A.G.A. has then referred to the record of present application and on basis thereof, he submits that applicant is a charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below. The charge sheet/police report was submitted against applicant on 18.11.2018. As such, the present application has admittedly been filed after expiry of more than 6 years and 5 months from the date of charge sheet/police report i.e 18.11.2018. It is at this stage that accused/applicant has come up with the prayer for further investigation. According to the learned A.G.A., an accused has right to claim further investigation. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the following judgements: i. Union of India and another v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260 (paragraph 92) ii. Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 6 SCC 65 (paragraph 11) iii. Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and others, (2014) 4 SCC 626 (paragraph 30) iv. Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India and others, (2016) 1 SCC 1 (paragraph 68) v. Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and others (2017) 4SCC 177 (paragraphs 7, 49 and 50) vi. Romila Thapar v. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC 753 (paragraph 25) vii. Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2019) 17 SCC 1 (paragraph 44) viii. Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and others, (2023) 1 SCC 48(paragraph 52) ix. Qamar Ghani Usmani v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 18 SCC 155 (paragraph 11) x. State Bank of India and others v. Rajesh Agarwal and others, (2023) 6 SCC 1 (paragraph 38) xi. Ramachandraiah and another v. M. Manjula and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 893 (paragraphs 14 and 15 ) xii. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Surendra Patwa and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 934 (paragraph 38) 6. On the above premise, it is urged by the learned A.G.A. that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. The learned A.G.A. thus submits that present application is misconceived and therefore, liable to be dismissed by this Court. 7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 8.. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application under Section 528 BNSS are not only borne out from the record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants. As such no occasion arises before this Court to entertain the present application. 9. As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 10. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 YK Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad