JUDGMENT :

SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, Advocate and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. By means of the instant application, the applicant-petitioner has prayed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-I, Sultanpur may be directed to proceed with the trial of the Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2022 (State vs. Vijay Pratap Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0257 of 2021, U/s 302,120-B I.P.C. Police Station-Munshiganj, District-Amethi, while following each and every mandatory and obligatory steps of the procedure prescribed in Code of Criminal Procedure for ensuring the very fair and transparent justice.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that an F.I.R. was lodged against the present applicant and his brother namely Vijay Pratap Singh at Police Station-Munshiganj, District-Amethi on 18-10-2021 and thereafter, the investigation conducted and Chargesheet was filed before the learned Trial Court on 16-12-2021 under sections 302 and 120-B of I.P.C. against the applicant-petitioner and the other co-accused persons. After filing of the Chargesheet, the concerned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on 22-04-2022 and committed the matter before the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur.

4. The electronic evidences i.e. compact device and Pen Drive was allegedly not given to the present applicant and the other co-accused persons, which came into the knowledge of the applicant after perusal of the case diary. In the compact device and pen drive, the statement of the deceased is said to be copied from the mobile of the complainant, which as per the applicant, is an important document and that should have been given to the applicant, but, once an application was moved under section 207 of Cr.P.C. before the learned court below on 14-07-2022 for providing the aforesaid, prior to framing of the charges, the same was not given to the applicant and thus, the contention is that the trial court has violated the mandate of the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the trial court prior to framing of charges, did not apply its judicial mind on discharge of the applicant, which is a valuable right.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant contends that even after an application moved before the court below on 14-07-2022, under sections 207/228 of Cr.P.C. the electronic devices i.e. the Compact Disc. as well as the Pen Drive was not provided to the applicant, though from perusal of the case diary, it reveals that the compact device and pen drive has been submitted with the case diary by the Investigating Officer.

6. Adding his arguments, he submits that since the compact device and pen drive is a part of the case diary and certainly, the prosecution shall rely on the same during the course of the trial and therefore, those are the important documents from the side of the prosecution, therefore, the copy of the same should have been provided by the trial court while following the proceedings under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that vide order dated 20-07-2022, the application of the applicant dated 14-07-2022 has been rejected and a finding has been recorded that the copy of the Compact device and pen drive has already been provided to the applicant and thereafter, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court. He submits that in fact this is a perverse finding as uptil date the copy of the pen drive and compact disc. has not been given to the present applicant and there is no proof that the copy of the aforesaid documents was ever given to the applicant, thus, the order dated 20-07-2022 is perverse and vitiates in the eyes of law.

7. He further contended that apart from the aforesaid, the applicant has also assailed the order dated 20-07-2022 as well as the further criminal proceedings of Sessions Case No. 573 of 2022 on the premise that th