Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17570 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36250 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijay Raj Urf Brijkishor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishn Kumar,Praveen Shrivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Sri Krishn Kumar, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant- Vijay Raj alias Brijkishor, who is a charge sheeted accused has approached this Court by means of present application under section 528 B.N.S.S. challenging the order dated 29.08.2024, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in Special Trial No. 529 of 2017 (State Vs. Raj Yadav & Ors.) along with Special Trial No. 627 of 2018 (State vs. Brij Kishor) arising out of Case Crime No. 551 of 2017, under Section 147, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali District Jhansi, whereby the application filed by the prosecution seeking amendment in the charges framed against accused has been allowed. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the date of occurrence mentioned in the F.I.R. giving rise to present criminal proceedings is 26.06.2017. Even in the body of the F.I.R. the date of occurrence has been mentioned as 26.06.2027. Since the check F.I.R. is an extract of the G.D. entry, therefore, the date of occurrence shall be deemed to be 26.06.2017. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that no amendment qua the date of occurrence mentioned in the charge sheet could have been permitted by court below. 5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present application. He submits that the first informant has not been impleaded as a party-respondent in present application. In the absence of the first informant as a party-respondent to this application present application is a bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper party. 6. As a result, the present application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder of necessary and proper party. 7. It is next contended by the learned A.G.A. that the order impugned has been passed by court below on the factual findings that as per the statement of the first informant and other eye witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the date of occurrence had emerged as 26.08.2017. However the statements of the first informant and other eye witnesses, which are the basis of aforesaid factual findings has not been appended along with the present application so as to contradict the factual findings recorded by court below with the record. As such, the findings recorded by court below in the order impugned remain sacrosanct. 8. It is lastly contended that the court below has allowed the application filed by prosecution on the ground that an inadvertent typographical error has crept in the framing of charge order. 9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 11. In view of above, no illegality has been committed by court below in passing the order impugned. 12. As such, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 13. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Ruhi H. (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad