Allahabad High Court
CHHOTE LAL MAURYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The order rejecting the application for further investigation is lawful and the criminal revision is dismissed.
Summary
The revisionist, Chhote Lal Maurya, filed a criminal revision challenging the order dated 12‑08‑2025 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge which rejected his application for a CBI investigation into the murder of his son. The original investigation had exonerated three accused (Vinod Singh, Rinku Singh, Sanjay Singh) and filed a charge‑sheet against Pawan Trivedi and Sachin Tiwari under Section 103(1) IPC and Section 315 of the B.N.S. Act. The revisionist sought further investigation under Section 319 Cr.P.C. but the court dismissed the application. The High Court examined the record, noted that the charge‑sheet had already been filed after a detailed investigation, and observed that the revisionist still had the statutory right to move an application under Section 319 at the trial stage. Consequently, the court found no illegality or irregularity in the lower court’s order and dismissed the revision.
Issues considered
- The legality of rejecting the revisionist’s application for a CBI investigation under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court’s decision to dismiss the application for further investigation
- Whether the revisionist has any other remedy at the trial stage
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. Act — s. 315
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 319
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- criminal revision
- CBI investigation
- Section 319 Cr.P.C.
- Section 103 IPC
- Section 315 B.N.S.
- charge sheet
- procedural irregularity
- appeal dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5555 of 2025
Chhote Lal Maurya
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Maiku Lal Maurya, Varun Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manish Singh, Sarita Singh
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the
State. Perused the record.
2. Under challenge is the impugned judgment and order 12.08.2025 passed
by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No.2, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 837 of 2025 (State Vs. Pawan Trivedi & another)
under section 103(1), 315 B.N.S., arising out of Case Crime No. 56 of 2025,
P.S. Husainganj, District Fatehpur,
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist had
filed a complaint regarding the murder of his son against the accused
persons, namely, Vinod Singh, Rinku Singh and Sanjay Singh. After
completion of the investigation, all the aforesaid three accused have been
exonerated during the investigation, and a charge sheet has been filed against
Pawan Trivedi and Sachin Tiwari under Sections 103(1), 315 B.N.S..
4. Learned counsel has further submitted that the revisionist filed an
application along with an affidavit dated 28.08.2025, seeking an order for
further investigation to be conducted by C.B.C.I.D., but the said application
has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 12.08.2025.
5. None is present for the opposite party nos. 3 & 5, even in the revised call,
and no counter affidavit has been filed till date.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that, after a detailed investigation, a charge
sheet has been filed against the accused persons. The revisionist has an
CRLR No. 5555 of 2025
2
opportunity to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., if found
appropriate, at the stage of trial.
7. In view thereof, neither there is any illegality nor irregularity in the
impugned order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is
dismissed accordingly.
March 16, 2026
M. Tarik
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…