HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3421 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. 2. This revision has been filed against the orders dated 13.5.2024 and the order dated 31.5.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Prayagraj in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2017 (State Versus Sameer Ahmad and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 73 of 2017, by which charge under Section 448 of IPC has been framed against the revisionist Aamir Ahmad and seven others. The said charge was framed under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 436 and 427 IPC. However, thereafter an application was moved by the informant of the present case, that a section particularly, Section 448 IPC was left at the time of framing of charge vide order dated 13.5.2024 against the revisionist and other persons. 3. Learned counsel submits that the order framing charge under Section 448 IPC is illegal and arbitrary and no opportunity of hearing was given to the revisionist, while adding charge in the amended charge. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that the order framing charge is also based on extraneous material and the Special Judge (S. C. / S. T. Act) ignored the relevant evidence which has come in the charge-sheet and was in favour of the revisionists. Had the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act considered the entire facts, then no charge, whatsoever, could have been framed in the given facts and circumstances. Learned counsel for the revisionists also submits that the property, where the incident took place, is the subject matter of trial before the Civil Court and therefore, no case, whatsoever, is made Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mansoor Ahmad, Munoour Ali Miski Amir Ahmad And 7 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) out against the revisionists, as the revisionists are the owner and in possession of the said property. Revisionists have prayed that the orders dated 13.5.2024 and 31.5.2024 are liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that, so far as Section 448 IPC is concerned, the said section was very much in the charge-sheet, however, the same is left out due to typographical error and submitted that once a section exists in the chargesheet, the charge is liable to be framed in respect of that section. Contrarily there are no finding that the charge in respect of section 448 was dropped. Learned Special Judge (S. C. / S. T. Act) has come to the conclusion that it was merely a typographical error and nothing else, which has been corrected and amended vide order dated 31.5.2024. Learned counsel further submitted that the charge framed vide order dated 31.5.2024 is based on chargesheet, wherein sufficient material has been collected against the accused during course of investigation and based on the said material, the chargesheet has been filed in the court concerned. Learned counsel also submits that, so far as the question of property in dispute is concerned, a separate civil suit is pending adjudication. However, the present first information report has been lodged in respect of an incident which took place on 1.5.2014, wherein the revisionists and other persons had indulged in the said incident. Learned counsel has also submitted that the trial in the said case has commenced and the prosecution witnesses are at the stage of examination and revisionists will have sufficient opportunity to defend their case and adduce any relevant evidence in their favour, as well as the accused will have the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as challenge to framing of charge is concerned, the said order is perfectly justified and calls for no interference. 4. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court has come to the conclusion that since the addition of Section 448 IPC was also a typographical error and there was no judicial finding either way, whether dropping or adding a separate charge, as the same existed in the chargesheet itself and having considered the fact of its being typographical error, the said charge has been added and fresh amended charge dated 31.5.2024 has been framed and the trial is going on, no infirmity is found in CRLR No. 3421 of 2024 2 the orders dated 13.5.2024 and 31.5.2025. 5. Revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. September 16, 2025 HR CRLR No. 3421 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad