Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51484 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11676 of 2025 Applicant :- Farman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Raghvendra Tripathi,Rohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Rohit Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned AGA for State-opposite party-1. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant- Farman, who is a charge-sheeted accused and facing trial before court below has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Court room No.1 District Muzaffar Nagar in Session Trial No.81 of 2024 (State versus Zakir and others), arising out of Case Crime No.102/2023 under Section 302, 120-B IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar and may kindly be direct the court below to proceed the case according to law. So the Justice may be done. It is also prayed that further proceeding of the aforesaid case may kindly stay during pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court; and/or pass such order or further order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. So that justice is done." 4. At the very outset, the learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection by contending that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution was allowed by court below as on account of mistake of Court, the second report could not be exhibited. He therefore submits that it is well established principle of law that an act of Court would prejudice none. As such no illegally can be attached to the order impugned. Moreover by reason of the order impugned the Court has taken judicial notice of it's omission as such the same is fully judicial as Courts are under a legal mandate to act according of law. 5. Apart from above, no prejudice can be said to be caused to the applicant in case the second report dated 21.09.2023 submitted by the first informant-opposite party-2 is exhibited. As such no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. 6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record, but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 8. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 9. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 R.S. Tiwari Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad