S Tekriwal Cold Traders Thru. Its Prop. Rakesh Tekriwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. And Another

"To quash the entire proceeding of Case No.29568 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.0773 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Nanpara, District - Bahraich."

3. On 15.12.2025, following order was passed:- "1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Shravan Kumar Verma, Advocate and Sharda Verma, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present application is filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.29568 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.0773 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Nanpara, District - Bahraich.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after detail investigation, closure report dated 23.7.2024 was submitted by the Investigating Officer, thereafter, application was moved by the complainant before the police authorities for further investigation, which was allowed by the police authorities without obtaining order from the competent court and charge sheet was also submitted by the Investigating 2 A482 No. 9850 of 2025 Officer. He also submits that questionnaire was filed before the court below and it was asked that whether any order was passed on the request of police authorities or not, then it was replied that no order for further investigation was issued. He further submits that in case, any application is filed by the police authorities for obtaining permission for further investigation then that application must be registered as misc. case and by way of a reasoned order either permission be granted or refused, however, in the present case, in the questionnaire dated 17.5.2025 it is replied that no order was passed for further investigation or re-investigation.

5. At this stage, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant requested for some time to seek instructions.

6. Accordingly, list this case on 18.12.2025 at 11:30 A.M.

7. In the meantime, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Shishir Jain, Special Counsel for the High Court shall seek instructions on the point that under which provisions misc. application is registered by a criminal court.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will inform Sri Shishir Jain, Advocate, Special Counsel for the High Court about the next date of listing.

9. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

10. Registry is directed to show the names of Sri Shishir Jain, Advocate as Special Counsel for the High Court and Sri Shravan Kumar Verma, Advocate and Sharda Verma, Advocate as counsel for the opposite party no.2 in the cause list."

4. In pursuance of aforesaid order, Sri Shishir Jain, learned Special Counsel for the High Court has placed written instructions dated

17.12.2025 duly signed by Sri Sunil Prasad, Special Judge (E.C. Act), Bahraich and written instructions dated 18.12.2025 duly signed by Sri Virendra Kumar-IV, In-charge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, which are taken on record.

5. Sri Shishir Jain submits that after investigation, police report/closure report was submitted, after that, an order dated 09.04.2025 passed by Superintendent of Police, Bahraich was also placed by In-charge, Inspector, P.S. Nanpara, Bahraich, namely, Mr. Ramagya Singh, but the date of the said application is not clear, which is mentioned under the signature of Mr. Ramagya Singh, and the P.O. enforced on the said application "Sir, submitted" on 24.04.2025. He further submits that on

25.04.2025, the office has made enforcement on the said application in 3 A482 No. 9850 of 2025 the form of report that in F.I.R. No. 773 of 2023 u/s 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nanpara, Bahraich, closure report has already been submitted on 12.08.2024, the same has been registered and next date is fixed as 02.05.2025. He next submits that in the aforesaid application, it is requested that Superintendent of Police has ordered for further investigation, hence, case diary and relevant record be returned, thereafter, on 25.04.2025, office was permitted to do the needful in relation to return of the document. He also submits that no order was passed by the concerned C.J.M. for further investigation.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the final report was submitted and cognizance was taken by learned trial Court for registering a miscellaneous case, thereafter, the said report was registered as miscellaneous case and date was fixed, then without permission of the Court, no further investigation can be done. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Peethambaran Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (2024) 16 SCC 65, learned counsel for the applicant requests for indulgence of this Court.

7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant request for some time to file parawise reply.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident for the record that after detailed investigation, final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer on

23.07.2024, after that, Superintendent of Police passed order for further investigation on 09.04.2025 without permission of the Court. During the pendency of the investigation, final report was accepted by the trial Court on 08.07.2025. Thereafter, new Investigating Officer submitted charge- sheet dated 07.08.2025, which is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Peethambaran Vs. State of Kerala and another (supra).

9. In view of above, the matter requires consideration.

10. List this case in the third week of February, 2026. 4 A482 No. 9850 of 2025

11. In the meantime, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant may file counter affidavit.

12. Until further order, the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed. December 18, 2025 Arpan (Rajeev Singh,J.)

"To quash the entire proceeding of Case No.29568 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.0773 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Nanpara, District - Bahraich."

3. On 15.12.2025, following order was passed:- "1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Shravan Kumar Verma, Advocate and Sharda Verma, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present application is filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.29568 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.0773 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Nanpara, District - Bahraich.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after detail investigation, closure report dated 23.7.2024 was submitted by the Investigating Officer, thereafter, application was moved by the complainant before the police authorities for further investigation, which was allowed by the police authorities without obtaining order from the competent court and charge sheet was also submitted by the Investigating 2 A482 No. 9850 of 2025 Officer. He also submits that questionnaire was filed before the court below and it was asked that whether any order was passed on the request of police authorities or not, then it was replied that no order for further investigation was issued. He further submits that in case, any application is filed by the police authorities for obtaining permission for further investigation then that application must be registered as misc. case and by way of a reasoned order either permission be granted or refused, however, in the present case, in the questionnaire dated 17.5.2025 it is replied that no order was passed for further investigation or re-investigation.

5. At this stage, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant requested for some time to seek instructions.

6. Accordingly, list this case on 18.12.2025 at 11:30 A.M.

7. In the meantime, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Shishir Jain, Special Counsel for the High Court shall seek instructions on the point that under which provisions misc. application is registered by a criminal court.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will inform Sri Shishir Jain, Advocate, Special Counsel for the High Court about the next date of listing.

9. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

10. Registry is directed to show the names of Sri Shishir Jain, Advocate as Special Counsel for the High Court and Sri Shravan Kumar Verma, Advocate and Sharda Verma, Advocate as counsel for the opposite party no.2 in the cause list."

4. In pursuance of aforesaid order, Sri Shishir Jain, learned Special Counsel for the High Court has placed written instructions dated

17.12.2025 duly signed by Sri Sunil Prasad, Special Judge (E.C. Act), Bahraich and written instructions dated 18.12.2025 duly signed by Sri Virendra Kumar-IV, In-charge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, which are taken on record.

5. Sri Shishir Jain submits that after investigation, police report/closure report was submitted, after that, an order dated 09.04.2025 passed by Superintendent of Police, Bahraich was also placed by In-charge, Inspector, P.S. Nanpara, Bahraich, namely, Mr. Ramagya Singh, but the date of the said application is not clear, which is mentioned under the signature of Mr. Ramagya Singh, and the P.O. enforced on the said application "Sir, submitted" on 24.04.2025. He further submits that on

25.04.2025, the office has made enforcement on the said application in 3 A482 No. 9850 of 2025 the form of report that in F.I.R. No. 773 of 2023 u/s 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nanpara, Bahraich, closure report has already been submitted on 12.08.2024, the same has been registered and next date is fixed as 02.05.2025. He next submits that in the aforesaid application, it is requested that Superintendent of Police has ordered for further investigation, hence, case diary and relevant record be returned, thereafter, on 25.04.2025, office was permitted to do the needful in relation to return of the document. He also submits that no order was passed by the concerned C.J.M. for further investigation.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the final report was submitted and cognizance was taken by learned trial Court for registering a miscellaneous case, thereafter, the said report was registered as miscellaneous case and date was fixed, then without permission of the Court, no further investigation can be done. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Peethambaran Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (2024) 16 SCC 65, learned counsel for the applicant requests for indulgence of this Court.

7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant request for some time to file parawise reply.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident for the record that after detailed investigation, final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer on

23.07.2024, after that, Superintendent of Police passed order for further investigation on 09.04.2025 without permission of the Court. During the pendency of the investigation, final report was accepted by the trial Court on 08.07.2025. Thereafter, new Investigating Officer submitted charge- sheet dated 07.08.2025, which is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Peethambaran Vs. State of Kerala and another (supra).

9. In view of above, the matter requires consideration.

10. List this case in the third week of February, 2026. 4 A482 No. 9850 of 2025

11. In the meantime, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant may file counter affidavit.

12. Until further order, the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed. December 18, 2025 Arpan (Rajeev Singh,J.)