Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61773 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7892 of 2025 Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Alias Babloo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raman Pandey Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Mr. S.P. Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State opposite party 1 and Mr. Raman Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party 2. Perused the record. Applicant Vijay Kumar alias Babloo, who is a charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Basti in Special Session Trial No.971 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Kumar @ Babloo and others) whereby the learned trial court has wrongly allowed the application no.17Kha filed on behalf of prosecution under section 216 Cr.P.C. and directed to alter and frame charges under section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Sonaha District Basti. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Additional Additional Session Judge/Special Judge Case Greeze 118/22~ (POCSO Act) Basti in Special Session Trial No.971 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Kumar @ Babloo and others) whereby the learned trial court has wrongly allowed the application no.17Kha filed on behalf of prosecution under section 216 Cr.P.C. and directed to alter and frame charges under section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Sonaha District Basti, during the pendency of this application before this Hon'ble Court. And/Or pass such further and suitable order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case." Learned counsel for applicant submits that order impugned in present application is manifestly illegal being in excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, same is liable to be quashed by this Court. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the power of altering the charge is the discretion of Court meaning thereby that the same has been exercised upon independent exercise of jurisdiction of court on the basis of the material on record. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, no application can be filed by either of the parties seeking alteration of the charges so framed. However, irrespective of above, Court below has entertained the application filed by prosecution seeking alteration of the charge and allowed the said application by means of order impugned. As such, order impugned is unsustainable in law and fact and therefore liable to be quashed by this Court. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State opposite party 1 and Mr. Raman Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party 2 have vehemently opposed the present application. They submit that since order impugned in present application is perfectly just and legal, therefore no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. According to the learned A.G.A., charges have been altered by the Court below only after deposition of P.W. 1 and P.W.2 were recorded i.e. the statement-in-chief and examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. It is on the basis of this credible evidence, that Court below has exercised it's discretion. As such, no mala fide or perversity can be attached to the exercise of jurisidiction by Court below. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, the argument raised by the learned counsel for applicant in challenge to the order impugned is superficial in nature and does not touch upon the legality of the order impugned. As such no interference is warranted by this Court. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State opposite party 1, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party 2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that no good ground exists to interfere in the order impugned. As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.4.2025/HSM Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad