HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10709 of 2025 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Hapur in Application No. 14 of 2023, as well as the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Hapur in Criminal Revision No. 124 of 2023 (Sachin @ Kalu v. State Incharge and another), whereby the application and the subsequent revision preferred by the petitioner have been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, which was allowed, and pursuant thereto, a direction was issued for registration of an FIR. It is contended that although the police registered the FIR, but deliberately omitted Sections 308, 326, 452, 34 IPC, and also reduced the number of accused persons mentioned in the application. Such selective registration of offences in disregard of the specific judicial direction amounts to wilful disobedience of the order of the Court and is prima facie referable to civil contempt' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. It is further submitted that, being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Application No. 14 of 2023 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Hapur seeking appropriate action, but the same was rejected vide order dated 03.07.2023 on the ground that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain the grievance. The petitioner thereafter preferred Criminal Revision No. 124 of 2023 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Hapur, which too came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2025 affirming the earlier order dated 03.07.2023. Assailing the legality, propriety and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Mishra, Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sachin @ Kalu .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) correctness of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached by way of filing the instant writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the courts below have passed reasoned and speaking orders in consonance with law and within the ambit of their jurisdiction. The grievance raised by the petitioner essentially pertains to the nature and scope of investigation and the incorporation of specific penal provisions, which lies exclusively within the domain of the investigating agency. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record, this Court finds that the Revisional Court has rightly observed that the Court lack jurisdiction to direct addition or deletion of any particular penal sections during investigation and has upheld the order passed by the Court of learned Magistrate. The grievance raised by the petitioner relates to the manner and fairness of investigation, which can appropriately be addressed by moving an application for fair investigation or further investigation before the competent court or by approaching the higher police authorities in accordance with law. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no manifest illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Nevertheless, it shall remain open to the petitioner to avail any other remedy as may be permissible in law for seeking fair and proper investigation in the matter. September 10, 2025 A. Tripathi A227 No. 10709 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad