HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9020 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the chargesheet and impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti with respect to Sessions Trial No. 69 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 1726 of 2017, under Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 353, 225, 224, 149, 147 of IPC, Police Station Sirsiya, District Shrawasti and for direction to the learned trial court to supply the entire case diary alongwith the chargesheet. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the present case the trial has been commenced but before the commencement of trial, the copies of the relevant prosecution documents have not been furnished, as is envisaged under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. He next submits that without having relevant prosecution paper, he is unable to defend his case. He next submits that before the trial court, in this regard, an application was moved but that application has been dismissed arbitrarily. He also submits that without giving him the copy of the necessary documents, irreparable injury would be caused and he could not be able to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and put his defence. He also submits that no other remedy against the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kunwar Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Daddan @ Muinuddin Ahamad Khan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) impugned order, therefore, he has filed the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court praying for quashment of the impugned order passed by the learned trial court and for direction to the trial court to furnish the copy of relevant prosecution documents in view of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Per contra, learned AGA for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that as per the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial could be commenced only after complying the provisions provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. He next submits that as per admission of the applicant, trial has been commenced and on perusal of the impugned order, it shows that prosecution witnesses have to come when the prosecution witnesses have to be examined, such type of application has been moved just for lingering the case. He next submits that if the copy of the relevant prosecution documents has not been furnished earlier, then how he was able to appear before the court for framing of the charge. He also submits that before the stage of evidence, he did not raise any objection. He next submits that there also an alternative remedy to file a revision was available but he directly came this Court by moving this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thus, the prayer of the applicant is misconceived and is only a tactic to delay the process of the case. Therefore, this application is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that an application was moved by the applicant before the trial court to furnish the copy of relevant prosecution documents as per the provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., at the time of evidence. In this regard, as per the relevant provision of Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the case is instituted by a police report. If it is a warrant case, then before commencement of trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and thereafter upon considering the police report and documents sent under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and making examination, after giving opportunity of hearing, if the Magistrate finds no evidence against the accused, he shall discharged the accused and if he finds that there is sufficient material to proceed with the case and prima facie case is made out A482 No. 9020 of 2025 2 for framing charge against the accused, then, he will prefer the charge and after framing the charges it be explained to the accused and when the accused replied that he has no guilty and he claims to be tried then after he will proceed for trial. In view of the above provision, it is apparent that in the present case, the trial has been commenced and case was fixed for prosecution evidence, meaning thereby, prior to commencement of the trial, the procedure has been complied with from very inception when the accused was summoned and before framing of charge and before commencement of trial he never raised such plea that he was not furnished the copies of the relevant prosecution documents. It shows that to avoid the cross-examination of the prosecution and just to cause the delay in the trial, this tactic was adopted, as mentioned by the learned trial court in the impugned order and apart from that there was an alternative and efficacious remedy is also available to challenge the impugned order in revision but the same is not challenged and directly this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed in this Court. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the application and, it is accordingly, dismissed. October 30, 2025 kkv/ A482 No. 9020 of 2025 3 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench