JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Vivek Kumar Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Mr R. P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

2. By means of this application, applicant/informant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 20.3.2023 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 561 of 2004 (State Vs Naresh Tikait), pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Muzaffar Nagar, relating to Case Crime no. 97 of 2003, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Bhaurakalan, District Muzaffarnagar whereby the application of the applicant under Section 216 Cr.P.C. (paper No. 337 Kha) for amending the charge to the extent of 'place of occurrence' has been rejected

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant lodged an FIR in relation to murder of his father, namely, Jagveer Singh, on 7.09.2003 vide Case Crime No. 97 of 2003, under Section 302 IPC, at P.S. Bhaurakalan, District Muzaffarnagar alleging therein that on 6.9.2003, when the informant along with his father and one Ramveer Singh, while going towards their village, are said to have reached in front of the house of one Parveen son of Ramphal at about 6 p.m. in Ambassdor Car, which was being driven by father of the informant, at that time, one Naresh Tikait son of Mahendra Tikait, Parveen son of Ramphal and Bittu @ Patwari son of Ramphal were standing in the way in a white coloured Maruti car in front of his house, and, as soon as father of the informant, decreases the speed of his vehicle, all the three accused persons, having country made pistols in their hands, came out of their car and accosted the vehicle of the informant from all sides, and, thereafter accused Praveen and Naresh are said to have shot dead his father by country made pistols. It is further alleged that at the time of incident, there were sufficient sun light and on raising alarm all the three accused persons fled away from the spot after leaving their Maruti Car. It is further alleged that informant immediately took his father to the Government Hospital but he died on the way to Hospital.

4. The matter was investigated by the police and thereafter the case was transferred to the CBCID, UP Police and after investigation charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court exonerating the accused Naresh Tikait, who lateron summoned by the trial court in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Charge is said to have been framed against the accused Naresh Tikait under Section 302 IPC on 11.6.2007 by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Muzaffarnagar, to the following effect as quoted below:-

"That on 6.9.2003 at 6 p.m. at village Alawalpur Majra, Police station Baura kalan, District Muzaffarnagar with common intention you and your companions Paveen Kumar and Rajeev Kmar caused grievous injuries by country made pistols to informant's father Jagveer Singh and due to said injuries, he succumbed, as such you committed murder which is punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and is cognizable by this Court."

5. The grievance of the applicant is that in the FIR, itself, the informant/applicant has specifically mentioned the place of occurrence that the accused persons murdered his father in front of the house of accused Praveen Kumar at Village Alawalpur Majra and during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has also prepared the site plan in which he has also mentioned that the occurrence took place in front of the house of Praveen but the trial court committed illegality in framing of the charge against the accused by not mentioning the specific place of occurrence. Further, the applicant, who has been examined as P.W.-1 in his deposition, he had specifically stated that on 6.9.2003 at 6 p.m., the accused persons fired at his father in front of the house of accused Praveen at Village Alawalpur Majra. Anoth