Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27086 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39879 of 2024 Applicant :- Chandan Ram And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar,Mohd. Monis Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to carry out necessary correction in the prayer clause, during course of the day. The applicants have preferred present petition challenging the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1713 of 2011, State v. Chandan Ram and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 255 of 2011, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kopaganj, District Mau, pending in the court of Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-1, Mau, order dated 23.07.2024 whereby application of District Government Counsel (Criminal) for framing alternative charges against the applicants has been accepted and order dated 10.10.2024, vide which charges have been framed apart from other sections, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially the first information report was lodged on 19.03.2011, wherein after investigation a charge-sheet was submitted on 01.04.2011 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. He further contends that during the course of trial, charges were framed on 30.08.2011 under Sections 498A, 306 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. Subsequently, on an application as moved by the D.G.C. (Criminal), charges have been framed on 10.10.2024 under Section 304-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC with alternative charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC only on the basis of the fact that the victim was mentally and physically tortured raising additional dowry demand. He further submits that in the version of FIR, statements, postmortem report as well as inquest report, there is nothing on record to show that the applicants were in any way involved in the murder of victim, therefore, alternative charge under Section 302 IPC could not have been framed. He next contends that from the postmortem report as well as report of Nayab Tehsildar and Panchayatnama, it is clear that the victim had committed suicide by hanging herself. There is no other injury report apart from ligature mark. From the aforesaid documents it is clear that though charges under Section 304-B IPC could have been made out but there is no evidence to show that the applicants were involved in murder of the victim, therefore, no charge could have been framed out under Section 302 IPC. There is no discussion in the order dated 23.07.2024 as to what were the supporting documents for framing charges in alternative Section 302 read with 34 IPC, thus, the said order is without reason. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the aforesaid fact. In view of the legal submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and the fact that the trial has been pending since 2011, wherein the order framing alternative charge has been passed on 10.10.2024 and the trial is towards its conclusion, this order is being passed without issuing the notice to opposite party no. 2. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and after perusal of the record, the Court finds that fresh orders be passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-1, Mau. Accordingly, the orders impugned dated 23.07.2024 and 10.10.2024 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-I, Mau to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 DS Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad