You should not rely only on oral submissions before the Court. Oral clarification may not always be properly recorded, and since an incorrect statement has already been reflected in the order sheet, it is important to place the correct position on record through a written filing.

The appropriate course of action is to file a supplementary counter affidavit in person. This is suitable because a counter affidavit has already been filed, and you are only supplementing and clarifying that affidavit rather than replacing it. The issue arises from the same proceedings and factual background, so a supplementary counter affidavit is procedurally correct.

In this filing, your brother should clearly state that he has already filed a counter affidavit in person and continues to rely on it fully. He should also mention that no further counter affidavit is required from his side. It should then be clarified that the statement recorded in the order sheet regarding “re-investigation” is incorrect and appears to have been made due to an inadvertent error. The correct position should be stated clearly, namely that “further investigation” pursuant to the Magistrate’s order is pending, and that this fact has already been mentioned and supported by documents in the earlier counter affidavit.

The language used should remain neutral and respectful, without making allegations against the counsel, and should simply indicate that the earlier submission was made under a mistaken understanding. Your brother should also state that he wishes to withdraw the vakalatnama of the existing counsel and intends to appear in person for the time being.

A prayer may be included requesting the Court to take the supplementary affidavit on record, to treat the earlier counter affidavit as final, and to note the correct position regarding further investigation.

On the next date of hearing, your brother should mention that a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in person and request that it be taken on record, while briefly clarifying the correction. This ensures that both the written record and oral clarification are aligned.

It is also important to note that the distinction between “further investigation” and “re-investigation” is legally significant, and correcting it at this stage is the correct approach.

It is better to place this in writing, not merely orally. Since a counter affidavit is already on record, your brother should file a short supplementary counter affidavit in person stating that he relies on his earlier in-person counter affidavit, wishes to discharge the present counsel and appear in person for now, and that the correct position is further investigation, not re-investigation. Under the Allahabad High Court Rules, material facts are normally brought before the Court through an application/affidavit by the person having knowledge of those facts.

On the next date, he may also orally mention that this written clarification has been filed and request the Court to read the record accordingly.

If you do not want to continue with the present counsel then you may issue a notice to him informing about the termination of vakaltnama given to him and file the copy of the notice before high court during the next hearing and also file a memo before high court that you have already filed the counter  affidavit that you r advocate had erroneously represented and sought time for filing counter affidavit  which is not maintainable at this stage and express that you are ready to submit your version or arguments as party in person, the high court may hear the same day or it may post the matter to some other day.  . 

2. If you do not want to file additional counter then you can inform the court that there is no additional counter to be filed.

In fact you may not be permitted to file additional counter affidavit without any valid reason because there was n o development after you filed the original counter affidavit i.e., the case is in the same stage hence without leave of court or without any direction by court instructing you to file additional counter affidavit, if any, you canot file an additional counter affidavit. 

Since you have already appeared as party in person and no as you have terminated the vakalatnama given to a counsel, you can continue to appear as party ion person in further proceedings. 

It should be in writing with affidavit 

He should appear in person (if he has not engaged a new lawyer) and inform the court that he is taking over the representation. He should reiterate his satisfaction with the first affidavit and state that the second filing is intended only to correct the record and remove the previous couns

2)To correct the record and withdraw the counsel in the Allahabad High Court, your brother should immediately file a written Application for Withdrawal of Counsel along with a Supplementary Affidavit in Person. This approach formalizes the correction, ensures the "further investigation" status is documented, and allows him to rely solely on his initial affidavit. 

According to Allahabad High Court practice, to file additional documents or facts via a Supplementary Affidavit/Supplementary Counter Affidavit, you must file an accompanying Interlocutory Application (IA) or a "prayer clause" asking the court to "take the same on record"

2)Filing such an affidavit without leave (prior permission) can lead to the document being rejected as it undermines procedural discipline.

You can file an affidavit after seeking permission from court 

In my opinion you have no reason to file a counter affidavit that too under the given circumstances. Since you are going to appear as party in person and that you have already filed a counter affidavit as party in person,  it is suggested that you file a memo before high court intimating your decision to terminate the services of the advocate and request court to continue the case as party in person and you can additionally state that you have already filed counter affidavit. 

The court will record your memo and pass suitable orders. 

There is nothing “illegal” about filing a simple affidavit. In theory, you can place facts before the Court through an affidavit. However, courts are very particular about how filings are titled and structured, because that determines how they are treated on record. A plain affidavit, without being linked to the earlier counter affidavit, may be treated as a miscellaneous or vague filing and may not be read as part of your defence to the quashing petition. The Court may simply note it without integrating it into the pleadings. That is why, in practice, it is always safer to file it as a supplementary counter affidavit, since it clearly indicates that you are supplementing your earlier counter and not introducing something unrelated.
In your case, you are not bringing in new facts on merits but clarifying and correcting what has already been stated in your counter affidavit. Procedurally, that still forms part of your “counter” to the petition, and therefore the correct nomenclature helps the Court immediately understand its purpose and attach it to the existing pleadings.
On your second question regarding permission, technically, filing a supplementary affidavit or supplementary counter affidavit may require the Court’s leave. However, in practice, especially in High Courts, such filings are routinely accepted and taken on record unless the opposite side objects or the Court finds prejudice being caused. Since your filing is only clarificatory in nature and does not change the substance of your defence, the Court is very unlikely to reject it.
The correct approach is to file the supplementary counter affidavit and, on the next date, simply inform the Court that you have filed it to clarify the earlier position. The Court will either take it on record directly or formally grant leave at that stage. This is standard practice.
So, to put it simply, while a plain affidavit is not barred in law, it is not the most effective or appropriate procedural vehicle in your situation. A supplementary counter affidavit ensures that your clarification is properly read, linked, and considered as part of your defence.

Dear Client, 

It is suggested to have written filing first and then a brief oral clarification on the next date. Since the order sheet already records the wrong phrase, relying on oral correction alone may leave the mistake standing in the record. A written filing creates a clean paper trail. For the document to be presented before the court supplementary affidavit in person or application/ memo for clarification and for proceeding in person is suggested. Based on the facts of the case, your brother adding a new substantive reply, saying he stands by the affidavit, wishes to proceed without current counsel and reinvestigation statement as an inadvertent mistake, are all already stated in his affidavit and supported by the order of the Magistrate. A supplementary counter affidavit is not wrong if the registry prefers that, what matters more is the substance. 

Since this quashing matter is under BNSS, the High Court retains inherent power to make orders necessary to give effect to the Code and prevent abuse of power. A short written clarification asking the court to note that the earlier oral submission was mistaken and the brother relies on his existing in person counter affidavit can be considered. I hope this helps. If you have any further queries, please feel free to contact us. 

Thank You. 

You can file a simple affidavit, but since a counter affidavit is already on record, courts prefer a supplementary counter affidavit to maintain procedural consistency.
Filing a supplementary counter affidavit usually does not need prior permission; you can file it and seek the Court’s leave at the time of hearing.
This is the proper way to correct facts, withdraw counsel, and clarify your stand.

Next step you may consider:
File a short supplementary counter affidavit in person before the next date and briefly mention it in Court; for drafting accuracy.

The appropriate method is to file a Supplementary Affidavit in Person, as there is no legal bar against it. A simple "Affidavit" is generally used to verify initial pleadings, whereas a "Supplementary Affidavit" is the correct vehicle for placing subsequent facts or clarifications—including procedural developments or changes in legal representation—on record before the court . You do not require prior permission of the court to file it; the Allahabad High Court routinely takes such affidavits on record during pending proceedings . The court may later consider any objections regarding form, but filing it is your right to ensure the accurate factual matrix is before the judges, allowing you to correct your former counsel's erroneous submission and formally withdraw his vakalatnama.