Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93084 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14280 of 2025 Applicant :- Neeraj Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rudra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the material available on record. 2. The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 292 of 2024 (State v. Manish @ Vipin and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 287 of 2024, under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, whereby charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC have been framed against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR, which was lodged with an unexplained delay of 16 and a half hours. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions and substantial improvements in the statements of the complainant and the eyewitnesses, on whose account the FIR was lodged. It is also contended that the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased does not corroborate with the post-mortem report, and the statements of two other witnesses, recorded after a delay of 54 days, also contain significant improvements, thereby weakening the prosecution case. It is further contended that it is a case of accidental death which has been falsely given the color of a homicidal act, and that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motives. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposes the application and submits that there are sufficient material on record to proceed with the trial against the applicant. It is contended that the applicant is the person who had hired the offending vehicle, as per the statement of the vehicle's owner, and that her husband has also corroborated the fact that the applicant took the vehicle from their possession for a oblique purpose, revealed subsequently. It is further submitted that the medical evidence reveals serious injuries, including fractures in three bones and a fatal injury to the parietal region of the head. It is also alleged that there existed prior enmity between the applicant and the deceased, both of whom were engaged in the same line of work as contractors. Moreover, a recovery has been made at the instance of the applicant. 5. Upon considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the arguments raised on behalf of the applicant pertain to factual aspects and evaluation of evidence, which are matters to be adjudicated upon during the course of trial. At this stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether there exists sufficient material to frame a prima facie case. The impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the given facts-circumstances, the Court does not find any merit in the present application. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. Order Date :- 26.5.2025/Anil K. Sharma Vinod Diwakar, J. Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad