Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145390 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27487 of 2025 Applicant :- Yaseen Ghazi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Chadha,Mohammad Aon,Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed against the order dated 16.05.2025, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO), Court No. 01, Aligarh, in Criminal Revision No. 421 of 2023 (Yaseen Ghazi vs. State of U.P. and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 472 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has lodged first information report against his wife and one Nida for offences under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420 I.P.C., wherein, after investigation, the police have submitted final report. The applicant has preferred protest petition but the same was rejected and final report was accepted by learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.09.2023. The applicant has preferred the criminal revision against the order dated 11.09.2023, which was allowed by the Session Court vide order dated 10.04.2024 and the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by learned Magistrate was set aside. The opposite party no. 2 has preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of revisional court, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2024 and the matter was remanded back to the learned revisional court. After that learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision of applicant vide impugned order dated 16.05.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the order of this Court in said petition was obtained by the opposite party no. 2 by misleading the facts. There are allegations that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have forged birth certificate of his daughter and thus, the impugned order is against the facts and law and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Perusal of record shows that applicant has lodged the first information report against his wife Gulista and one Nida by moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The main allegation is that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have forged a false birth certificate of the daughter of applicant. After investigation police have submitted final report with conclusion that no case is made out. The applicant has preferred a protest petition, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate and final report was accepted vide order dated 11.09.2023. The applicant has preferred criminal revision against that order, which was allowed by Session court vide order dated 10.04.2024, whereby order dated 11..09.2023 passed by learned Magistrate was set aside. It appears that opposite party no. 2 has preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of revisional court, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 16.11.2024 and the order of the revisional court was set aside and matter was remanded back. After that the revision of the applicant had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 16.05.2025. It is apparent from the record that the impugned order has been passed in compliance of order passed by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order in the light of observations made by this Court in order dated 16.11.2024. Even otherwise it appears that first information report of this case was lodged in order to settle score in matrimonial dispute. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of Court or miscarriage of justice. No case for interference in the impugned order by invoking powers under Section 528 BNSS, is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 sailesh NA528 No. 27487 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad