A IT Act (State v. Sanjay Shankhdhar) Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad. It is further pray

4. It transpires from record that the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 lodged an F.I.R. dated 09.02.2024, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0086 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506, 384 I.P.C. and Section 76A I.T. Act, Police Station- Majhola, District-Moradabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant-Sanjay Kumar Shankhdhar has been nominated as solitary named accused.

5. Gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that applicant, who is already married is alleged to have dislodged the modesty of the prosecutrix by committing rape upon her repeatedly by playing deceit as he alleged himself to be unmarried. The prosecutrix is alleged to have repeatedly requested the applicant to solemnize marriage but the same was not acceded too by the applicant on one ground or the other. Subsequently, it was discovered by the prosecutrix that applicant is married. He is having children and his wife is also alive. Upon discovery of aforesaid fact, the prosecutrix is alleged to have terminated her relationship with the applicant. However, upon such act of the prosecutrix, the applicant is alleged to have extended threat of making viral of an obscene video of the prosecutrix with applicant, wherein the prosecutrix is shown having sex with applicant. A request was made by the prosecutrix to delete the said video. However, the applicant is alleged to have forced the prosecutrix to continue with the physical relationship or else the aforesaid obscene video shall be made viral.

6. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, he examined the prosecutrix/first informant as well as other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Medico Legal Examination of the prosecutrix was also conducted. On the basis of above and other material collected by 2 of 6 the Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that the offence complained of is fully established. Investigating Officer thus submitted the charge sheet/police report dated

13.04.2024 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C whereby and where-under applicant was charge sheeted under Sections 376, 504, 384 I.P.C. and Section 67A I.T. Act.

7. After submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report dated

13.04.2024, cognizance was taken upon same by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C, vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 13.04.2024.

8. As a consequence of above, Criminal Case No.6805/4 of 2024 (State Vs. Sanjay Shankhdhar) under Sections 376, 506, 384 I.P.C. and Section 67A I.T. Act, Police Station-Majhola, District-Moradabad, came to be registered.

9. During pendency of aforementioned criminal case, accused/applicant filed the following applications. For ready reference, the same are tabulated herein-under. (A). Application dated 04.09.2024. This application has not been brought on record (B). Application dated 07.04.2025, Annexure 19, page 417. The application seeking amendment in the application dated 04.09.2024. (C). Application dated 10.04.2025, Annexure S.A.-1 (D). Application dated 15.04.2025, Annexure 23, page 452

10. Aforementioned applications came to be rejected by court below by means of order impugned dated 17.04.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

11. Thus feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2025, applicant, who is a named and charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS. 3 of 6

12. Applicant submits that the order impugned in present application is manifestly illegal. Applicant had filed aforementioned applications with the prayer for further investigation or stay of the proceedings on different grounds. With reference to the applications, he, therefore, submits that in view of the prayer made in aforementioned applications dated 04.09.2024,

09.04.2025 and 15.04.2025, court below ought to have stayed the proceedings of aforementioned criminal case and also direct for further investigation. As such, court below has erred in law in passing the order impugned. On the above premise, the applicant would submit that the order impugned be quashed and the aforementioned applications be allowed.

13. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. According to the learned A.G.A., upon submission of the police report, the Jurisdictional Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction under Section 190 Cr.P.C. However, once the Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. upon the charge sheet/police report submitted by the Investigation Officer in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. then in that eventuality, the Jurisdictional Magistrate can never on his own could stay the proceedings of the criminal case nor can he direct for further investigation at post-cognizance stage. In view of above, the prayer made for by means of aforementioned applications dated

04.09.2024, 10.04.2025 and 15.04.2025 were wholly misconceived. In view of above, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in passing the order impugned.

14. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that apart from challenge to the order impugned in the present application, accused/applicant has also prayed for further investigation of concerned case crime number. The prayer so made is also misconceived as it is by now well settled that an accused has no right to claim further investigation. In support of above, 4 of 6 the learned A.G.A. has relied upon the following judgements of Supreme Court: i. Union of India and another Vs. W. N. Chadha, 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 260. ii. Narender G. Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 6 SCC 65 iii. Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and others (2014) 4 SCC 626 iv. Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt Vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 1 SCC 1 v. Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and others, (2017) 4 SCC 177 vi. Romila Thapar and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC 753 vii. Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others (2019) 17 SCC 1 viii. Devendra Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2023) 1 SCC 48 ix. Qamar Ghani Usmani Vs. State of Gujarat, (2023) 18 SCC 155 x. State Bank of India and others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others, (2023) 6 SCC 1. xi. Ramachandraiah and another Vs. M. Manjula and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 893 xii. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Surendra Patwa and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 934

15. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. As such, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

16. 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 applications dated 04.09.2024, 10.04.2025 and 15.04.2025 were filed by applicant with the prayer to stay the further proceedings of criminal case or to direct for further investigation. Both the prayers made by accused/applicant by means of aforementioned applications were misconceived inasmuch as after submission of the charge sheet/police report dated 13.04.2021, cognizance had already been taken by the Jurisdictional Magistrate upon same in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., vide Cognizance Taking Order dated

24.05.2024. Since under the Code, there is no power vested with the 5 of 6 Jurisdictional Magistrate to stay the proceedings, therefore, no order staying the proceedings of the concerned criminal case could have been passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Furthermore, the power to direct further investigation can be exercised by the Jurisdictional Magistrate before taking cognizance but not after cognizance has been taken upon the charge sheet/police report. In view of above, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in rejecting the applications dated 04.09.2024, 07.04.2025, 10.04.2025 and

15.04.2025 filed by applicant before court below. Furthermore, the Apex Court in the judgements already referred to above has negated the right of an accused to claim further investigation. As such, no direction for further investigation at the instance of the accused/applicant can be given.

17. In view of the discussions made above, no good ground has emerged to entertain the present application under Section 528 BNSS.

18. Consequently, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

19. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 22.08.2025 Vinay VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 6 of 6

4. It transpires from record that the prosecutrix/first informant/opposite party-2 lodged an F.I.R. dated 09.02.2024, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0086 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506, 384 I.P.C. and Section 76A I.T. Act, Police Station- Majhola, District-Moradabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant-Sanjay Kumar Shankhdhar has been nominated as solitary named accused.

5. Gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that applicant, who is already married is alleged to have dislodged the modesty of the prosecutrix by committing rape upon her repeatedly by playing deceit as he alleged himself to be unmarried. The prosecutrix is alleged to have repeatedly requested the applicant to solemnize marriage but the same was not acceded too by the applicant on one ground or the other. Subsequently, it was discovered by the prosecutrix that applicant is married. He is having children and his wife is also alive. Upon discovery of aforesaid fact, the prosecutrix is alleged to have terminated her relationship with the applicant. However, upon such act of the prosecutrix, the applicant is alleged to have extended threat of making viral of an obscene video of the prosecutrix with applicant, wherein the prosecutrix is shown having sex with applicant. A request was made by the prosecutrix to delete the said video. However, the applicant is alleged to have forced the prosecutrix to continue with the physical relationship or else the aforesaid obscene video shall be made viral.

6. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, he examined the prosecutrix/first informant as well as other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Medico Legal Examination of the prosecutrix was also conducted. On the basis of above and other material collected by 2 of 6 the Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that the offence complained of is fully established. Investigating Officer thus submitted the charge sheet/police report dated

13.04.2024 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C whereby and where-under applicant was charge sheeted under Sections 376, 504, 384 I.P.C. and Section 67A I.T. Act.

7. After submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report dated

13.04.2024, cognizance was taken upon same by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C, vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 13.04.2024.

8. As a consequence of above, Criminal Case No.6805/4 of 2024 (State Vs. Sanjay Shankhdhar) under Sections 376, 506, 384 I.P.C. and Section 67A I.T. Act, Police Station-Majhola, District-Moradabad, came to be registered.

9. During pendency of aforementioned criminal case, accused/applicant filed the following applications. For ready reference, the same are tabulated herein-under. (A). Application dated 04.09.2024. This application has not been brought on record (B). Application dated 07.04.2025, Annexure 19, page 417. The application seeking amendment in the application dated 04.09.2024. (C). Application dated 10.04.2025, Annexure S.A.-1 (D). Application dated 15.04.2025, Annexure 23, page 452

10. Aforementioned applications came to be rejected by court below by means of order impugned dated 17.04.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

11. Thus feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2025, applicant, who is a named and charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS. 3 of 6

12. Applicant submits that the order impugned in present application is manifestly illegal. Applicant had filed aforementioned applications with the prayer for further investigation or stay of the proceedings on different grounds. With reference to the applications, he, therefore, submits that in view of the prayer made in aforementioned applications dated 04.09.2024,

09.04.2025 and 15.04.2025, court below ought to have stayed the proceedings of aforementioned criminal case and also direct for further investigation. As such, court below has erred in law in passing the order impugned. On the above premise, the applicant would submit that the order impugned be quashed and the aforementioned applications be allowed.

13. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. According to the learned A.G.A., upon submission of the police report, the Jurisdictional Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction under Section 190 Cr.P.C. However, once the Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. upon the charge sheet/police report submitted by the Investigation Officer in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. then in that eventuality, the Jurisdictional Magistrate can never on his own could stay the proceedings of the criminal case nor can he direct for further investigation at post-cognizance stage. In view of above, the prayer made for by means of aforementioned applications dated

04.09.2024, 10.04.2025 and 15.04.2025 were wholly misconceived. In view of above, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in passing the order impugned.

14. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that apart from challenge to the order impugned in the present application, accused/applicant has also prayed for further investigation of concerned case crime number. The prayer so made is also misconceived as it is by now well settled that an accused has no right to claim further investigation. In support of above, 4 of 6 the learned A.G.A. has relied upon the following judgements of Supreme Court: i. Union of India and another Vs. W. N. Chadha, 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 260. ii. Narender G. Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 6 SCC 65 iii. Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and others (2014) 4 SCC 626 iv. Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt Vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 1 SCC 1 v. Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and others, (2017) 4 SCC 177 vi. Romila Thapar and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC 753 vii. Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others (2019) 17 SCC 1 viii. Devendra Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2023) 1 SCC 48 ix. Qamar Ghani Usmani Vs. State of Gujarat, (2023) 18 SCC 155 x. State Bank of India and others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others, (2023) 6 SCC 1. xi. Ramachandraiah and another Vs. M. Manjula and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 893 xii. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Surendra Patwa and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 934

15. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. As such, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

16. 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 applications dated 04.09.2024, 10.04.2025 and 15.04.2025 were filed by applicant with the prayer to stay the further proceedings of criminal case or to direct for further investigation. Both the prayers made by accused/applicant by means of aforementioned applications were misconceived inasmuch as after submission of the charge sheet/police report dated 13.04.2021, cognizance had already been taken by the Jurisdictional Magistrate upon same in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., vide Cognizance Taking Order dated

24.05.2024. Since under the Code, there is no power vested with the 5 of 6 Jurisdictional Magistrate to stay the proceedings, therefore, no order staying the proceedings of the concerned criminal case could have been passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Furthermore, the power to direct further investigation can be exercised by the Jurisdictional Magistrate before taking cognizance but not after cognizance has been taken upon the charge sheet/police report. In view of above, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in rejecting the applications dated 04.09.2024, 07.04.2025, 10.04.2025 and

15.04.2025 filed by applicant before court below. Furthermore, the Apex Court in the judgements already referred to above has negated the right of an accused to claim further investigation. As such, no direction for further investigation at the instance of the accused/applicant can be given.

17. In view of the discussions made above, no good ground has emerged to entertain the present application under Section 528 BNSS.

18. Consequently, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

19. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 22.08.2025 Vinay VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 6 of 6