JUDGMENT :

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant, today, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

3. Notice issued to the opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.

4. By means of this application, the applicant has assailed the charge dated 23.3.2022 framed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.09/Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act, Lucknow, in Criminal Case No.194 of 2015 (Union of India Vs. Nasreen Bano and others), initiated on the basis of complaint filed by the opposite party in C.B.N. Crime No.8 of 2014, under Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act.

5. Factual matrix as per the prosecution story is that on 13.12.2014, while receiving information through mukhbir, co-accused Nasreen Bano was arrested with contraband substance and while preparing the recovery memo, the police team also recorded the statement, wherein the name of the applicant came into light. House of the applicant was searched on 28.4.2015 but the officers of the Department could not recover any contraband or incriminating articles. The trial court has taken cognizance on 5.6.2015 on charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, which was assailed by applicant before this Court and the same was set aside, while giving liberty to pass fresh order and, thereafter, fresh order was passed, as per the version of the applicant, without following the procedure of law. On 22.12.2021, the applicant was enlarged on bail and he kept on appearing before the trial court, while participating in the trial proceedings. Thereafter, on 22.2.2022, the trial of the applicant was separated from the co-accused Nasreen Bano and the applicant was summoned through warrant B. On 23.3.2022, the charge was framed though neither the contents of the charges were told to the applicant nor even his name is mentioned in the charges, which is evident from the order itself, though the applicant has signed over the order of charge on the same day. The order of charge dated 23.3.2022 is under challenge, in this application.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned order dated 23.3.2022 has been passed without mentioning the name of the present applicant in the contents of the charges. He added that though the signature of the present applicant is on the said order but he has not been told/informed regarding the contents of the charges whereas it is not a case that the present applicant avoided the criminal proceedings instituted against him, as he, after the aforesaid order, is appearing on each and every date before the trial court. Further he submits that in fact, the provisions prescribed under Section 211 of the Cr.P.C. has clearly been violated by the trial court while passing the impugned order. Drawing attention towards the impugned order, he submits that name of one of the co-accused Nasreen Bano is mentioned therein as charges have been framed against Nasreen Bano only and only by averring that the signature of the present application is on the order of framing of charges, does not mean that the provisions of Section 211 Cr.P.C. has been complied with.

7. He further added that the trial court is proceeding in a hasty manner, which is evident from the fact that just after framing of the charges on 7.7.2023, non-bailable warrant has been issued, vide order dated 10.7.2023, though there is no history of the applicant that he has ever avoided the proceedings of the trial court and even there is no apprehension that he will escape away from the criminal proceedings. Thus, submission is that the order of charge dated 23.3.2022 vitiates in the eyes of law and the same may be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1, Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the order dated 23.3.2022, by which charges have been framed, has rightly b