Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74995 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16248 of 2025 Applicant :- Abdullah And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ali Jamal Khan,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 30.10.2021 and impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 14.02.2022 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 16 of 2022 (Sate vs. Abdullah and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 61 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 452, 427, 307, 504 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, PS- Bhanwarkol, District Ghazipur pending in court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 3, Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants sought the attention of Court over impugned cognizance order dated 14.02.2022 and submitted that cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court no. 3, Mohammadabad, Ghazipur against applicants on the above mentioned sections but no section has been mentioned in the order dated 14.02.2022, except in the title of the case as well as description of the sections along with Case Crime number, police station and District. 4. Learned counsel for applicants also submitted that charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants in pursuance to sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506, 427 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act but while taking cognizance, learned Magistrate has committed a manifest error by adding Section 307 IPC which is not sustainable. For supporting his arguments, learned counsel for applicants relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, reported in 2014 (3) SCC 659 wherein it has been held that addition and subtraction of charge for any offence/any section is permissible by trial court only at the time of framing of charge under sections 216, 218 or 228 Cr.P.C. hence the cognizance order is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 6. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that in the impugned cognizance order dated 14.02.2022, no sections has been mentioned under which cognizance has been taken up against the applicants, except in the case title, moreover the argument raised by learned counsel for applicant regarding addition of Section 307 IPC is also justified and comes under the purview of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat (supra). 7. In the light of aforesaid discussions, impugned cognizance order dated 14.02.2022 is not sustainable in the eye of law and is hereby set aside only in respect of applicants namely Abdullah, Arman and Tanveer. 8. However, this order will not preclude the learned concerned court from taking fresh cognizance of offence, against applicants, if required, in accordance with law. 9. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad