Vijaypal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others

2. In pursuance to the earlier order of this Court, Shri Umeshwar Prabhat Singh, C.O., Tarabganj, Gonda and Shri Doodhnath, S.I., Nawabganj, Gonda are present before this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and Shri Alok Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant of Case Crime No.303 of 2024, P.S. Nawabganj, District Gonda.

4. The case has a chequered history as would be apparent from a perusal of the order dated 18.09.2025 which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:- "1. Heard.

2. This Court has passed order dated 15.09.2025, which reads as under: "1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record. 2 CRLP No. 7495 of 2025

2. This Court vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed the following orders:- "1. Heard Sri Mohsin Iqbal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girjesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties specially to opposite p arty No.1 and 2 to transfer the case crime No.421/2024 under Sections 191(2), 118(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), B.N.S. Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda to some other police station, district or some other independent agency fair, impartial and investigation. ii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party No. 2 to take appropriate action against the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 and initiate proper department enquiry against them. iii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party No.4 not to do further investigation of the case."

3. Let the personal affidavits of Station House Officer, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda- opposite party No.3 and Investigating Officer, P.S. Nawabganj, District Gonda- opposite party No.4, be filed within a period of ten days.

4. List this case on 15.09.2025 as fresh. If, the personal affidavit of the aforesaid opposite parties is not filed, both shall appear in person on the next date."

3. In compliance of aforesaid order, Shri Abhay Singh, S.H.O. Nawabganj, Gonda and Shri Shiv Kumar Yadav, Investigating Officer of the issue in question are present in person before this Court. They have stated that on account of some urgent assignments, personal affidavit could not be filed, therefore, forty eight hours may be given to file the same in terms of earlier order. 3 CRLP No. 7495 of 2025

4. Considering the aforesaid request of both the officers, list this case on 18.09.2025 in the additional cause list to enable them to file personal affidavit.

5. Both the aforesaid officers shall again appear in person before this Court on the next date.

6. While filing personal affidavit, the contents of supplementary affidavit, which has been filed today, shall also be taken into account."

3. Shri Dinesh Singh Rana, learned AGA has filed personal affidavits of one Sri Abhay Singh- Station House Officer and Sri Shiv Kumar Yadav- Investigating Officer, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Gonda, same are taken on record.

4. Both the aforesaid officers are present in person.

5. The Investigating Officer- Shri Shiv Kumar Yadav has informed that since no incriminating material or evidence has been found against those accused persons, against whom the FIR has been lodged by the petitioner, therefore, final report has been filed.

6. Learned AGA has informed that in the same crime case, final report was earlier filed and pursuant to the direction being issued by the learned trial court to conduct further investigation, the same has been conducted and again the final report has been filed.

7. The Investigating Officer has informed that in a cross FIR, which has been lodged against the petitioner and others, chargesheet has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the parties has stated that the incident in question is of the same date.

9. On being confronted the Investigating Officer on the injury of the petitioner and showing the coloured photographs which has been enclosed with the petition, on the point as to how the final report has been filed against the accused persons in a FIR of the petitioner, he tried to explain that the present petitioner and his family members specially his uncle is having criminal record and they were aggressor. However, he could not explain the reason that after noticing the injury 4 CRLP No. 7495 of 2025 report and coloured photographs of the petitioner as on what satisfaction, this final report has been filed against accused persons in a FIR of the petitioner.

10. Sri (Dr.) V. K. Singh, learned Government Advocate and Sri Dinesh Singh Rana, learned AGA have also been shown the injury report and coloured photographs of the petitioner showing serious burn injuries on an area which cannot be inflicted by the person himself. Therefore, learned GA and learned AGA have stated that they cannot defend the Investigating Officer for the manner under which the investigation has been conducted by him in a FIR of the petitioner. Though, they have stated that the issue is still before the supervisory authority and the direction may be issued for further investigation.

11. The law is trite on the point that even if, the chargesheet is filed in a case, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may set aside the chargesheet and may direct re-investigation. Since in the present case, the chargesheet has not been submitted before the learned trial court and still pending before the supervisory authority for perusal and necessary order, therefore, the supervisory authority is directed to go through the final report, injury report of the petitioner as well as the coloured photographs of the petitioner, wherein his injuries have been shown to decide as to whether the final report is liable to be accepted or sent to the court or further investigation is required. Thereafter, any appropriate order may be passed by the supervisory authority strictly in accordance with law.

12. The supervisory authority/competent authority/ disciplinary authority of the Investigating Officer is directed to seek specific explanation from the Investigating Officer as to how he has filed final report in a matter twice after including noticing the facts and circumstances so indicated in the writ petition report and coloured injury photographs of the injured/petitioner and if his satisfaction is not satisfactory, any appropriate order may be passed under the relevant rules.

13. On the next date, whatever decision has been taken by the supervisory authority/competent authority/ disciplinary authority in terms of this order, may be shown to the Court. 5 CRLP No. 7495 of 2025

14. List this case on 08th October, 2025. On that date, Sri Abhay Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda need not appear again. However, the supervisory authority as well as Sri Shiv Kumar Yadav, Investigating Officer, who is present today shall appear in person on the next date.

15. Copy of this order shall be provided Superintendent of Police, District Gonda by the registry within 48 hours for information and appropriate orders."

5. From a perusal of the aforesaid order it emerges that in an F.I.R. having been filed by the petitioner, twice a final report had been submitted.

6. It is only when this Court had passed the aforesaid order dated

18.09.2025, action has been taken by the respondent-authorities and in pursuance thereof, learned A.G.A. states that a charge sheet dated 01.11.2025 has been filed in court on 06.11.2025 in pursuance to the F.I.R. and two persons namely Shri Patandeen and Shri Pradeep have been arrested.

7. Thus it is apparent that it is only when this Court had interfered in the matter, that the respondent-authorities have woken up and have carried out the investigation arresting two persons namely Shri Patandeen and Shri Pradeep and filing charge sheet against them under Sections 118(2), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S. However, co-accused namely Ramji, Vanshi and Naushad have been charged under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that although the F.I.R. had been lodged against six persons of which Shri Patandeen, Shri Pradeep and Shri Kuldeep were alleged to have poured boiling oil over the petitioner which has resulted in his injuries but only Shri Patandeen and Shri Pradeep have been arrested.

9. Upon the same being pointed out, learned A.G.A. states that Shri Kuldeep has been found to be a minor. In the statement of the independent witnesses, he was not found to be involved in the 6 CRLP No. 7495 of 2025 incident of pouring of boiling oil over the petitioner and, hence, has been charged under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S.

10. Considering that the charge sheet has already been filed, as such, the petitioner would have an opportunity at the appropriate stage of putting his version and it would always be open for the competent court to proceed in accordance with law.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. November 12, 2025 S. Shivhare (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. In pursuance to the earlier order of this Court, Shri Umeshwar Prabhat Singh, C.O., Tarabganj, Gonda and Shri Doodhnath, S.I., Nawabganj, Gonda are present before this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and Shri Alok Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant of Case Crime No.303 of 2024, P.S. Nawabganj, District Gonda.

4. The case has a chequered history as would be apparent from a perusal of the order dated 18.09.2025 which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:- "1. Heard.

2. This Court has passed order dated 15.09.2025, which reads as under: "1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record. 2 CRLP No. 7495 of 2025

2. This Court vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed the following orders:- "1. Heard Sri Mohsin Iqbal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girjesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties specially to opposite p arty No.1 and 2 to transfer the case crime No.421/2024 under Sections 191(2), 118(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), B.N.S. Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda to some other police station, district or some other independent agency fair, impartial and investigation. ii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party No. 2 to take appropriate action against the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 and initiate proper department enquiry against them. iii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party No.4 not to do further investigation of the case."

3. Let the personal affidavits of Station House Officer, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda- opposite party No.3 and Investigating Officer, P.S. Nawabganj, District Gonda- opposite party No.4, be filed within a period of ten days.

4. List this case on 15.09.2025 as fresh. If, the personal affidavit of the aforesaid opposite parties is not filed, both shall appear in person on the next date."

3. In compliance of aforesaid order, Shri Abhay Singh, S.H.O. Nawabganj, Gonda and Shri Shiv Kumar Yadav, Investigating Officer of the issue in question are present in person before this Court. They have stated that on account of some urgent assignments, personal affidavit could not be filed, therefore, forty eight hours may be given to file the same in terms of earlier order. 3 CRLP No. 7495 of 2025

4. Considering the aforesaid request of both the officers, list this case on 18.09.2025 in the additional cause list to enable them to file personal affidavit.

5. Both the aforesaid officers shall again appear in person before this Court on the next date.

6. While filing personal affidavit, the contents of supplementary affidavit, which has been filed today, shall also be taken into account."

3. Shri Dinesh Singh Rana, learned AGA has filed personal affidavits of one Sri Abhay Singh- Station House Officer and Sri Shiv Kumar Yadav- Investigating Officer, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Gonda, same are taken on record.

4. Both the aforesaid officers are present in person.

5. The Investigating Officer- Shri Shiv Kumar Yadav has informed that since no incriminating material or evidence has been found against those accused persons, against whom the FIR has been lodged by the petitioner, therefore, final report has been filed.

6. Learned AGA has informed that in the same crime case, final report was earlier filed and pursuant to the direction being issued by the learned trial court to conduct further investigation, the same has been conducted and again the final report has been filed.

7. The Investigating Officer has informed that in a cross FIR, which has been lodged against the petitioner and others, chargesheet has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the parties has stated that the incident in question is of the same date.

9. On being confronted the Investigating Officer on the injury of the petitioner and showing the coloured photographs which has been enclosed with the petition, on the point as to how the final report has been filed against the accused persons in a FIR of the petitioner, he tried to explain that the present petitioner and his family members specially his uncle is having criminal record and they were aggressor. However, he could not explain the reason that after noticing the injury 4 CRLP No. 7495 of 2025 report and coloured photographs of the petitioner as on what satisfaction, this final report has been filed against accused persons in a FIR of the petitioner.

10. Sri (Dr.) V. K. Singh, learned Government Advocate and Sri Dinesh Singh Rana, learned AGA have also been shown the injury report and coloured photographs of the petitioner showing serious burn injuries on an area which cannot be inflicted by the person himself. Therefore, learned GA and learned AGA have stated that they cannot defend the Investigating Officer for the manner under which the investigation has been conducted by him in a FIR of the petitioner. Though, they have stated that the issue is still before the supervisory authority and the direction may be issued for further investigation.

11. The law is trite on the point that even if, the chargesheet is filed in a case, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may set aside the chargesheet and may direct re-investigation. Since in the present case, the chargesheet has not been submitted before the learned trial court and still pending before the supervisory authority for perusal and necessary order, therefore, the supervisory authority is directed to go through the final report, injury report of the petitioner as well as the coloured photographs of the petitioner, wherein his injuries have been shown to decide as to whether the final report is liable to be accepted or sent to the court or further investigation is required. Thereafter, any appropriate order may be passed by the supervisory authority strictly in accordance with law.

12. The supervisory authority/competent authority/ disciplinary authority of the Investigating Officer is directed to seek specific explanation from the Investigating Officer as to how he has filed final report in a matter twice after including noticing the facts and circumstances so indicated in the writ petition report and coloured injury photographs of the injured/petitioner and if his satisfaction is not satisfactory, any appropriate order may be passed under the relevant rules.

13. On the next date, whatever decision has been taken by the supervisory authority/competent authority/ disciplinary authority in terms of this order, may be shown to the Court. 5 CRLP No. 7495 of 2025

14. List this case on 08th October, 2025. On that date, Sri Abhay Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda need not appear again. However, the supervisory authority as well as Sri Shiv Kumar Yadav, Investigating Officer, who is present today shall appear in person on the next date.

15. Copy of this order shall be provided Superintendent of Police, District Gonda by the registry within 48 hours for information and appropriate orders."

5. From a perusal of the aforesaid order it emerges that in an F.I.R. having been filed by the petitioner, twice a final report had been submitted.

6. It is only when this Court had passed the aforesaid order dated

18.09.2025, action has been taken by the respondent-authorities and in pursuance thereof, learned A.G.A. states that a charge sheet dated 01.11.2025 has been filed in court on 06.11.2025 in pursuance to the F.I.R. and two persons namely Shri Patandeen and Shri Pradeep have been arrested.

7. Thus it is apparent that it is only when this Court had interfered in the matter, that the respondent-authorities have woken up and have carried out the investigation arresting two persons namely Shri Patandeen and Shri Pradeep and filing charge sheet against them under Sections 118(2), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S. However, co-accused namely Ramji, Vanshi and Naushad have been charged under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that although the F.I.R. had been lodged against six persons of which Shri Patandeen, Shri Pradeep and Shri Kuldeep were alleged to have poured boiling oil over the petitioner which has resulted in his injuries but only Shri Patandeen and Shri Pradeep have been arrested.

9. Upon the same being pointed out, learned A.G.A. states that Shri Kuldeep has been found to be a minor. In the statement of the independent witnesses, he was not found to be involved in the 6 CRLP No. 7495 of 2025 incident of pouring of boiling oil over the petitioner and, hence, has been charged under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S.

10. Considering that the charge sheet has already been filed, as such, the petitioner would have an opportunity at the appropriate stage of putting his version and it would always be open for the competent court to proceed in accordance with law.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. November 12, 2025 S. Shivhare (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench