Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122783 Court No. - 82 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23136 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandrashekhar Alias Ravan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nidhi,Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel,Sushil Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. Order on Crl. Misc. Amendment Application No. 1 of 2025 1. Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned AAG assisted by Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. At the very outset, learned AAG submitted that he is having no objection if amendment application filed by the applicant is allowed. 3. In view of the above, amendment application filed by the applicant is allowed and prayer made in the instant application u/s 528 BNSS be amended with the prayer made in the amendment application which is as follows:- " It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned order-dated 10.3.2025 (Annexure No. 6) as passed by the trial court rejecting discharge plea of the accused-applicant in terms of S. 262 of BNSS in connection with the criminal proceeding of Spl. Criminal Case No. 1477 of 2024 (arising out of case crime No. 154 of 2017) u/s 147,148, 149, 435 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur (State Vs. Chandrashekhar @ Ravan & others) pending currently in the court of Ld ACJM- IIIrd/Spl. Judge MP/MLA court, PS Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur against him since it amounts to a clear abuse of the process of the court." Order on APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS 1. Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned AAG assisted by Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State-respondent are present. 2. The instant application u/s 528 has been filed with the following amended prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be leased to allow this application and quash the impugned order-dated 10.3.2025 (Annexure No. 6) as passed by the trial court rejecting discharge plea of the accused-applicant in terms of S. 262 of BNSS in connection with the criminal proceeding of Spl. Criminal Case No. 1477 of 2024 (arising out of case crime No. 154 of 2017) u/s 147,148, 149, 435 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur (State Vs. Chandrashekhar @ Ravan & others) pending currently in the court of Ld ACJM-IIIrd/Spl. Judge MP/MLA court, PS Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur against him since it amounts to a clear abuse of the process of the court." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is accused in the instant matter and after investigation charge sheet has been filed against him for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 435 IPC and when he moved discharge application before the court concerned then by the impugned order dated 10.3.2025, his discharge application has been dismissed. 4. He further submitted that from perusal of the impugned order dated 10.3.2025, it reflects that the court concerned dismissed the discharge application only on the ground that as cognizance order has not been quashed by any higher Court, therefore, applicant cannot be discharged. 5. He further submitted that the observation of the court concerned is wholly erroneous and even if order of cognizance has not been challanged then also it is statutory right of the accused to claim discharge and it was the duty of the trial court to decide the discharge application on merit after considering the material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation and therefore, impugned order dated 10.3.2025 is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned AAG, however, opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact that the discharge application of an accused should be decided after considering the material collected during investigation in spite of the fact that cognizance order passed by the court concerned has not been disturbed by higher Courts. 7. He further submitted that therefore, matter may be remitted back to the trial court to take a fresh decision on the discharge application moved by the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. In the instant application, applicant challanged the order dated 10.3.2025 passed by the court concerned by which his discharge application has been dismissed. 10. From the impugned order dated 10.3.2025 it reflects that the discharge application of the applicant was dismissed merely on the ground that as cognizance order passed by the court concerned has not been quashed by the higher Courts, therefore, applicant cannot be discharged without even considering the evidence collected by investigating officer during investigation. 11. In the considered view of this Court, above observation of the trial court is against the law. 12. Law is settled that an accused can make prayer to discharge him even if cognizance order has not been challanged and if he moves discharge application then it is the legal obligation upon the court concerned to decide the same on merit after considering the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. The statutory right of an accused to claim discharge can not be taken away in the manner as adopted by trial court in the present case. 13. Therefore, in my view impugned order dated 10.3.2025 passed by the court concerned is illegal and is accordingly quashed and matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction that discharge application of the applicant shall be decided on merit in accordance with law within one month without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 14. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands 'disposed of'. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad