1. Heard Mr. Amit Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Pawan Srivastava, learned AGA for State as well as Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The instant application has been preferred for seeking quashing of impugned order dated 04.06.2026 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Basti in Session Trial No.478 of 2022 (State vs. Sukhpal Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.96 of 2021, P.S. Gaur, District- Basti, whereby application preferred under section 216 Cr.P.C. at the behest of opposite party no.2 has been allowed and section 307 IPC has been added.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 19.05.2021 being Case Crime No.96 of 2021 has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant along with other accused persons in pursuance to sections 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 307, 188 IPC along with section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and section 51(b) Disaster Management Act, 2005 alleging that on 16.05.2021 at about 7 pm when he went to Sikari Chauraha for buying vegetables, accused persons, who are having political rivalry with him, started abusing and threatening him, upon which he objected and some people from the place managed the situation and thereafter opposite party no.2 went to his house; when the opposite party no.2 reached near the house of one Ram Naresh, the accused persons catched him and assaulted him with laathi-danda and one accused Raghvendra (applicant herein) having fire arm in his hand shot fire upon the opposite party no.2 and when one Manoj Sharma tried to save the opposite party no.2, he was also being assaulted in the alleged incident.

4. In respect to the above allegation made in the FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer conducted detail investigation and submitted charge- sheet against the accused persons, upon which cognizance of offence has been taken up and five accused persons including the applicant herein have been summoned vide order dated 02.08.2021 in pursuance to sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC.

5. Being aggrieved with the fact that charge under section 307 IPC has been omitted against the accused persons, an application under section 216 Cr.P.C. dated 08.08.2022 has been preferred at the behest of opposite party no.2 for alteration of charges and adding section 307 IPC, which was rejected by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Basti vide order dated 08.09.2022 by way of stating that the said application is premature. Thereafter, charges have been framed against the accused on dated 22.09.2022 and trial has been commenced against the accused persons including the applicant.

6. During trial, statements of P.W.1 Bablu, P.W.3 Manoj and P.W.2 the doctor who treated the injured persons (P.W.1 and P.W.3) of the alleged incident has been recorded and thereafter, on dated 16.03.2023 opposite party no.2 again preferred an application under section 216 Cr.P.C. with the same prayer and this time, learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Basti allowed the said application and added section 307 IPC vide order dated 04.06.2026 by way of altering charges, which impugned the instant application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by learned trial court is illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that earlier an application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. preferred at the behest of opposite party no.2 with the same prayer has already been rejected and thereafter the same was allowed in spite of any new facts and material evidences available on record and even if whatsoever the material which is available with the learned trial court taken into consideration, the same does not corroborate any offence in respect of section 307 IPC against the applicant. On the aforesaid premise, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

8. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer so