Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26626 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4527 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Urmila Devi And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- Shivakant,G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Sri Shivakant Awasthi has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2 is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned S.P. Singh for the State and Sri Shivakant Awasthi for opposite party No. 2. 3. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing of the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by Special Judge/Additional Session Judge (Essential Commodities Act) Fatehpur, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 504, 506 IPC and optional Section 307 IPC in ST No. 1038 of 2022, Case Crime No. 602 of 2020, P.S. Kotewali, District Fatehpur (State Vs. Urmila Devi and 3 other). 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a first information report stood lodged under Sections, 506, 504, 307, 148, 147 being FIR No. 0602 of 2020 on 04.09.2020 relatable to the commission of the offence whereby the son of the first informant was going outside his house along with the pet thereafter the co-accused Ashok Savita son pelted stone upon the pet when some was complained the co-accused Ashok Savita and his wife, applicant No. 1, daughter applicant No. 2 and applicant No. 3 daughter hatched a conspiracy and thereafter armed with wooden sticks cuddle having pointed nails embedded upon it inflicted injuries while dragging them out of the house pursuant whereto the first informant, Praveen Kumar sustained injuries. As per the allegations contained in the first information report not only abuses were hurled and when the same was being resisted then co-accused Ashok Savita asked his wife to bring the rifle and his wife Urmila, applicant No. 1 took the rifle in her hands in order to kill fired, however, the said bullet did not hit. 5. Post investigation charge sheet came to be submitted against the co-accused Ashok Savita under Section 147, 148, 504, 506, 307, 149 and 452 IPC, however, against the applicants charge sheet came to be submitted under Section 147, 148, 504, 506 and 308, an application came to be filed by the opposite party for insertion of charges under Section 307 against the applicants which came to be allowed on 24.01.2025. 6. Questioning the same, the applicants have filed the present application. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the introduction of alternate charge under Section 307 against the applicants cannot be said to be legal particularly when the role assigned to each and every assailants is different and further the investigating officer after conducting thorough submitted report and no fault whatsoever can be attributed in this regard. He submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated and now they have been harassed to be ultimate. 8. Learned AGA as well as counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submits that on earlier occasion the applicants herein had approached this Court while filing an application under Section 482 No. 3798 of 2022 questioning the charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 504, 506 and 308 and thereafter the only order which they could obtain was for expeditious disposal of the bail. He further submits that the trial court on the application preferred by the opposite party No. 2 has meticulously analyzed the matter and once in the FIR common intention stood noticed then there was no reason to attribute different sections in the form of penal consequences. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the court below. The narration of the allegations contained in the first information report itself shows that with a common intention, offences were committed and that is why sections 147, 148 and 149 was put to service. Apart from same, the FIR discloses that the applicants along with co-accused Ashok Savita in connivance committed the offence particularly in the case of Urmila, applicant No. 1, she had also fired with intention to kill as alleged in the first information report and the other accused applicants have also committed offence of extending injuries to the injured. Though the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and the injuries were not sustained on account of any overt act or omission of the applicants but this Court is not required to go into the said issues particularly when the stage of considering the defence has not arisen. This Court is not required to go into the factual aspects. 10. In view of the above, the application is consigned to record. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad