Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33783 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7288 of 2025 Applicant :- Irshad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicants, namely, Irshad, Irfan and Israr, who are charge- sheeted accused and facing trial before court below have approached this Court by means of present Application U/S 528 BNSS with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and set aside the proceedings of S.T. No.1033 of 2022 (State Vs. Irshad and others) arising out of case crime No.0210 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Rudhauli, District-Basti and also the charge- sheet dated 17.11.2022 filed in the above noted case crime number. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of S.T. No.1033 of 2022 (State Vs. Irshad and others) arising out of case crime No.0210 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Rudhauli, District-Basti and also the charge-sheet dated 17.11.2022 filed in the above noted case crime number, during the pendency of present application before this Hon'ble Court." 4. After some arguments, learned counsel for applicants fairly submits that upto this stage, six prosecution witnesses have deposed before court below. 5. At this juncture, the Court raised a pointed query, as to how, the present application is now maintainable. Learned counsel for applicants, repeatedly, submitted that there are various illegalities in the trial of the applicants. 6. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that applicants were charge-sheeted in terms of a police report submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 7. After submission of aforementioned police report, cognizance was taken upon the same by the jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter, since offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Concerned Sessions Judge proceeded against the applicants. In compliance of Section 228 Cr.P.C. he framed charges against the accused-applicants, which were denied by the accused-applicants and they pleaded innocent and further demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced. Upto this stage six prosecution witnesses have deposed before court below. It is well settled, by now, that once the charges have been framed by court, then the Court is bound to answer the same one way or the other. As such, the prayer prayed for by means of the present application is now mis- conceived. 7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for State, O.P. No.1 and upon perusal of records, this Court finds that no good ground exists to entertain the present Application. 9. In view of above, this Application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 10. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad