HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1741 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.08.2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 1866 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R. No. 542 of 2024, under Sections 351(3), 651(1), 333 B.N.S. and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Dewa, District Barabanki. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case, but charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer in mechanical manner, on which, trial was proceeded. It is further submitted that the statements of the witnesses were recorded, but the earlier counsel could not cross-examine them properly. It is also submitted that when the new counsel was engaged, he examined the entire lower court record and found that certain questions were not asked from the witnesses during the course of cross-examination, due to which, he filed application under Section 348 BNSS for calling of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that without considering the aforesaid facts, the said application was rejected by the trial court vide impugned order dated 07.08.2025. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanat Singh, Sudhir Kumar, Suhail Kashif Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nitesh Kumar @ Nitesh Rawat .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Court is necessary. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that only by change of counsel, application under Section 348 BNSS cannot be allowed. It is further submitted that only vague pleadings have been mentioned in the application under Section 348 BNSS that some important points were left to be asked from the witnesses during their cross-examination, however, no specific point has been mentioned in the said application. It is, thus, submitted that the trial court has rightly rejected the application vide impugned order. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the sole basis for moving of the application under Section 348 BNSS is that the counsel was changed, who examined the record and found that certain questions were left to be asked from the witnesses during the course of cross- examination. However, not even a single question is mentioned either in the application under Section 348 BNSS or in the averments of the present application. 6. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below. 7. The application is misconceived and stands dismissed. November 26, 2025 VKS NA528 No. 1741 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench