Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61464 Court No. - 76 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3970 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vikash Rastogi Alias Vikash Babu Rastogi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyanand Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, in Misc. Case No. 986 of 2024, under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., P.S. Bisauli, District Budaun. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Municipal Council, Bisauli, Budaun on 02.02.2011, whereas the shop in question was allotted to respondent no.2 in the year 1997. It is submitted that the shop was subsequently cancelled and re-allotted to another person by the Executive Officer (respondent no.4) vide order dated 22.05.2010, which is prior to the petitioner's joining in service. Therefore, the petitioner had no role in the allotment, cancellation, or re-allotment process. It is argued that the petitioner does not have any authority in his official capacity to allot shops or collect payment, and the allegations made against him are vague, baseless, and motivated. 4. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, did not consider the objections submitted by the petitioner nor the inquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which according to the petitioner, exonerates him. Hence, it is argued that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the writ petition and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6. The learned A.G.A. argued that the allegations made by the complainant/respondent no.2 are not merely civil in nature but contain elements requiring thorough investigation under criminal law. The learned Magistrate, upon examination of the application and the supporting material, including the statements and inquiry documents, exercised discretion judicially. It was further submitted that the Magistrate is not bound to accept any inquiry report or objection if, on the face of the record, a prima facie case is made out for further action. The plea of the petitioner that he joined after the disputed allotment does not preclude the possibility of his involvement in subsequent events related to enforcement or manipulation. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Upon hearing the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.03.2025. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner could best be tested during investigation or trial. There is nothing on record to demonstrate any manifest illegality or abuse of process warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 9. However, it is open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions, including those relating to his alleged non-involvement, before the Investigating Officer or during appropriate stages of inquiry or trial, as the case may be. The Investigating Officer shall consider any material or representation submitted by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 A. Tripathi Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad