Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:94128 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11435 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohammad Shaukin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyam Narayan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (AC Act), Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 1185 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 250 of 2016, under Sections 302, 452, 506, 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application has been filed challenging the rejection of the application under Section 217 of the Cr.P.C. filed before the trial court. It is argued that there has been factually incorrect finding recorded in order of charge with regard to the place of occurrence in the prosecution's story. Initially, the place of occurrence was stated to be Kanakpur, however, during the course of trial, it was corrected to Runakpur and to fill the lacuna of the prosecution, the prosecution moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge, which was allowed by the trial court and the correction was made in the order of charge vide impugned order dated 06.07.2017, substituting Kanakpur with Runakpur and changing the place of incident from house to gher. 4. It is further submitted that following the alteration of charge, the applicants moved an application under Section 217 Cr.P.C., seeking recall of PW-1 to PW-4 for the purpose of further cross- examination of prosecution witness. However, the said application was rejected by the trial court vide the impugned order dated 30.01.2025, which is under challenge herein. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the application and submitted that the correction was made only with regard to the name of the location and not with regard to the place of offence. Furthermore, it is pointed out that eight prosecution witnesses have already been examined and extensively cross-examined, and that the applicants themselves, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., have admitted the place of incident to be gher, thereby rendering the request for recall of witnesses redundant. 6. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by the parties and perusal of the trial court record, this Court finds that the alteration of the charge was duly allowed under Section 216 Cr.P.C., and was limited to the charge name of place of occurrence not the place of occurrence. The impugned order dated 30.01.2025, rejecting the application under Section 217 Cr.P.C., does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The defence has already had ample opportunity to cross-examine the material witnesses, and no prejudice has been demonstrated to have been caused by the said alteration, especially when the applicants themselves have referred to the place as gher in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the court. 7. It is well settled that the purpose of Section 217 Cr.P.C. is to ensure fairness in trial, however, it does not warrant a recall of witnesses unless some real prejudice has been shown to have been caused by the alteration of charge. In the present case, no such prejudice has been substantiated. 8. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Imtiyaz Vinod Diwakar, J. Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad