Allahabad High Court

RAM KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 9 OTHERS

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The magistrate erred; the victim must be endorsed as a prosecution witness and the order rejecting the application is set aside.

Summary

Ram Kumar filed an FIR alleging that his son Ankit Srivastav was assaulted. The charge‑sheet filed by the police omitted Ankit as a witness. Ram Kumar applied to the magistrate for further investigation under Sec. 173(8)/193(3) CrPC, but the magistrate rejected the application twice, first on the ground that it was not forwarded by the public prosecutor and later without considering the merits. The High Court, hearing an application under Sec. 528 CrPC to quash the magistrate’s order, held that Ankit is the main prosecution witness and must be endorsed in the charge‑sheet. The Court directed the magistrate to list the victim as a prosecution witness and disposed of the application.

Issues considered

Whether the magistrate erred in rejecting the application for further investigation without applying its judicial mind.
Whether the victim, Ankit Srivastav, must be named as a prosecution witness in the charge‑sheet.
Whether the order of the magistrate can be quashed under Section 528 of the CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(8), 193(3), 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 323

Subjects

criminal procedure
further investigation
victim as witness
charge sheet
Section 528 CrPC
Section 173(8) CrPC
Section 193(3) CrPC
quashing order
magistrate

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40745 of 2025

Ram Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 9 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Prakash Rawat
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dwijendra Prasad, Pradyumna Kumar,
G.A.

Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/first informant, learned AGA for
the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The instant application has been preferred for seeking quashing of order
dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX,
Agra in Case No.13565 of 2024 (State vs. Gaurav Shukla and Others) arising
out of Case Crime No.47 of 2024, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 IPC,
P.S. Fatehpur Sikri, District- Agra.

3. Brief facts of the case is that initially an FIR dated 04.03.2024 being Case
Crime No.47 of 2024 has been lodged by the applicant against opposite
party nos.2 to 10 with an allegation that they have done maar-peet with his
son, namely, Ankit Srivastav, who got seriously injured in the alleged
incident, over which applicant had also approached this Court by way of
filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8442 of 2024 regarding fair
investigation of the instant FIR, wherein Division Bench of this Court
directed the applicant/petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned for
monitoring the investigation as per judgement of the Apex Court in the case
of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., LAWS(SC)-2007-12-69 vide order dated
29.05.2024.

4. Meanwhile, charge-sheet has been submitted by concerned Investigating
Officer on dated 11.04.2024, wherein name of the victim has not been
mentioned in the charge-sheet and he has also not been made a witness in the
charge-sheet. Thereafter, applicant approached the learned court concerned
NA528 No. 40745 of 2025
2

and moved an application under section 173(8) Cr.P.C./193(3) BNSS for
further investigation of the present case, which was rejected by learned
Magistrate vide order dated 04.07.2024. Aggrieved with the above order,
applicant approached this Court by way of filing Application u/s 528 BNSS
No.27530 of 2025, in which co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 28.08.2025 rejected the impugned order and remanded the matter back
to learned Magistrate concerned to pass an order on the application of
applicant afresh with following observation :-

"6. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that applicant is informant
of the case and after investigation police have submitted charge sheet
against accused persons. The informant has moved an application before the
learned Trial court for further investigation by alleging that one of the
injured, namely, Ankit Srivastava has not been cited as witness in the charge
sheet. That application has been rejected by the learned Trial court merely
on the ground that the said application was not forwarded by the Public
Prosecutor. As applicant is informant of the case thus, he was competent to
move an application for further investigation. Learned Trial court
committed error by not deciding the said application of applicant on
merits."

5. Thereafter, the applicant approached the learned court concerned in
compliance of order dated 28.08.2025 passed by this Court, but the
application of applicant preferred under section 173(8) Cr.P.C./ 193(3)
BNSS was again rejected vide order dated 19.09.2025 by learned court
concerned, which impugned the present application.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that order impugned passed
by learned court concerned is without applying his judicial mind and passed
in a routine manner, wherein facts and circumstances of the case as well as
the evidence on records has also not been considered. Learned counsel for
the applicant further submitted that the concerned Investigating Officer with
the collusion of accused and without proper investigation preferred charge-
sheet, wherein injured/victim/son of the applicant, namely, Ankit Srivastav,
who is the main witness of the present case, whose name is not cited as
witness in the charge-sheet by concerned Investigating Officer and as such
the charge-sheet preferred is not acceptable and the prayer of the applicant to
further investigate the instant case is just and right in the eye of law. Hence,
the order impugned passed by learned court concerned is liable to be set-
NA528 No. 40745 of 2025
3

aside.

7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer as made through instant application and
rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant by way of
supporting the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned court concerned,
but at the same time, they did not dispute the fact that the son of the
applicant, who was not cited as witness in the charge-sheet, is the main
witness and only injured of the alleged incident, which has been
demonstrated through narration of FIR as well as injury report of the injured,
Ankit Srivastav.

8. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the
parties as well as considering the order impugned, this Court finds that the
injured/victim, namely, Ankit Srivastav is the main witness of the alleged
incident and as such, it is necessary to put the said victim as witness in the
charge-sheet.

9. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, without
interfering in the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Agra in Case No.13565 of 2024
(State vs. Gaurav Shukla and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.47 of
2024, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 IPC, P.S. Fatehpur Sikri, District-
Agra, the learned trial court is hereby directed to endorse the victim, namely,
Ankit Srivastava being injured as one of the prosecution witnesses during
trial.

10. With the aforesaid direction, the instant application stands disposed of.

March 19, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…