Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22666 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41684 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Daya Shanker Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant Rajiv Kumar, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2021 (State Vs. Rajiv Kumar) under Sections 328, 376, 345D, 509, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut pending in the court of learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Court No. 1, Meerut. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No.96 of 2021 (State Vs. Rajiv Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.335/2020 under section 328, 376, 354D, 509, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut, pending in the Court of learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Court No. 1, Meerut, during pendency of the case before this Hon'ble Court. And/or to pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, otherwise applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury." 4. After some arguments, the learned A.G.A. points out that during pendency of trial, applicant prayed for discharge in terms of Section 227 Cr. P. C., which was negated by Court below. Consequently, Court below framed charges against accused applicant, vide framing of charge order dated 08.09.2021 in excessive of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr. P. C. the trial has commenced. 5. In view of above, prayer prayed for by means of present application is now misconceived. As such, present application is liable to be dismissed. 6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are not only born out from the record but furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant. As such, no good ground exists to interfere in present application In view of above, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 8. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 HSM Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad