Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80424 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15055 of 2025 Applicant :- Shubham Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anita Singh,Dinesh Kumar Misra,G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Misra, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Shubham Yadav, who is a named as well as 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 be pleased to quash the effect and operation of the order dated 26.03.2025 issued by Additional District and Session Judge /Special Judge, POCSO Act Jaunpur, In ST.No. 122/2023, Case Crime No.05/2023, State of U.P. Versus Shubham Yadav under section 376, 323, 504, 506, of I.P.C., 5/6 POCSO Act, and 67 AI.T. Act, Chandawak, District- Jaunpur, application dated 21.09.2023 , Police Station-and allowed the under section 227 B.N.S.S. State of U.P. ST.No. 122/2023, Case Crime No. 05/2023, Versus Shubham Yadav under section 376, 323, 504, 506, of I.P.C., 5/6 POCSO Act, and 67 I.T. Act, Police Station- Chandawak, District-Jaunpur which is wrongly dismissed by Additional District and Session Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act Jaunpur, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss & Injury. and/or may pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court, may deem, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the Applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that due to inadvertence, the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad and the District Legal Services Committee, Jaunpur, who are necessary and proper parties in this application under Section 528 BNSS., as it challenges the proceedings under POCSO Act also could not be impleaded as party respondents in present application. He, therefore, seeks permission of Court to amend the cause title of this application by impleading aforementioned authorities as party respondents/opposite parties 3 and 4. 5. Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona-fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A. 6. Accordingly, it is allowed. 7. Let necessary amendment/correction in the cause title of this application be carried out by the learned counsel for applicant during course of the day by impleading, the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad and the District Legal Services Committee, Jaunpur as party respondents/opposite parties 3 and 4. 8. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by contending that by means of order impugned the prayer for discharge prayed for by applicant has been negated by Court below. Referring to the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the learned A.G.A. submits that the prosecutrix has clearly and categorically supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR, the fact is that applicant has been charge sheeted under Section 67A of I.T. Act, is concerned. Various electronic evidence cannot be examined at this stage and also the law laid down by the Apex Court in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another, 2019 SCC Online Sc 1053. As per the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, the trial of an accused can be sustained provided that; A. As per the papers accompanying the charge sheet/police report submitted by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the commission of an offence is disclosed against accused, B. As per the material on record, there is evidence against accused, C. There is grave suspicion against accused. 9. With reference to the material on record, the learned A.G.A. submits that as per the papers accompanying the police report prima facie the commission of an offence alleged to have been committed by accused applicant is established. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that no illegality has been committed by Court below in rejecting the discharge application filed by applicant. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. 10. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Misra, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 has also opposed the present application. He has however adopted the submissions made by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application. 11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 12. 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 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. 13. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 14. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Imtiyaz Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad