Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110807 Court No. - 82 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24297 of 2025 Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Vishwakarma,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I, for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 31.5.2025 passed by Special Judge (P.C.Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Varanasi in S.T.No.07 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Arun Kumar Srivastava) and to allow the application dated 28.4.2025 filed by applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the complainant of the case and during his cross examination before the trial court he although specifically stated that the search of the accused has been made before him and before him hands of the accused were washed but it appears, due to typographical error/human error in his cross-examination word 'not' has been mentioned which shows that the search of the accused has not been made before him and enquiry officer has not washed the hands of the accused before him. He next submits, when applicant came to know about this error then he immediately moved an application before the trial court to correct the error but by the impugned order dated 31.5.2025 his application has been dismissed by the trial court. 4. He further submits that as prima facie it appears that due to mistake inadvertently the word 'not' has been typed, therefore, his application moved before the trial court ought to be allowed but the court concerned illegally dismissed his application. 5. He further submits that applicant is the complainant of the case and if typographical error has not been cured then he will suffer will irreparable loss, therefore, the impugned order dated 31.5.2025 should be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned AGA submits that from the perusal of the impugned order dated 31.5.2025 passed by the trial court it reflects that before taking signature of the applicant on his statement the same was read over to him and at the time of cross- examination he was even able to see it on the screen of computer but at that time he did not raise any objection and subsequently he moved an application and, therefore, order dated 31.5.2025 passed by the court concerned cannot be said to be illegal and the instant application filed by applicant is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. Applicant is the complainant of the case and his cross examination was recorded on 24.2.2025 before the trial court and after his cross-examination he moved an application on 28.4.2025, i.e., after two months that in his cross-examination it appears that due to mistake it has been transcribed that search of the accused has not been made before him and hands of the accused has not been washed before him by the Enquiry Officer, however, in fact in his cross-examination he clearly stated that the search of the accused was made before him and before him hands of the accused was washed by the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, the clerical/typographical error by inserting 'not' in his cross- examination in line-3 of page 13 of his cross-examination should be cured and word 'not' should not be read/deleted but the court concerned dismissed his application by impugned order dated 31.5.2025. 9. 9. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 31.5.2025 it reflects that while rejecting application moved by applicant trial court observed that at the time of cross-examination applicant was able to see the cross examination on computer screen and before taking his signature on the cross-examination the same was also read over to him but at that time he did not raise any objection. This finding of fact cannot be disturbed by this Court in the application moved under Section 528 BNSS. 10. Further, record also suggest that applicant moved the application to correct the alleged error in his cross examination very belatedly,i.e., after two months. 11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, while passing the impugned order dated 31.5.2025 trial court did not commit any illegality. 12. Accordingly, the instant application is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad