This was an application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order summoning a doctor as a material witness under S. 311 Cr.P.C. The Single Judge held the order was within jurisdiction and based on recorded materials, dismissing the challenge.
Application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Trial to proceed without unnecessary adjournments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20983 of 2018
Applicant :- Pankaj And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against an order dated 29.5.2018, passed in Session Trial No.182 of 2015 (State vs. Pankaj & others), arising out of Case Crime No.240 of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Link Road, District- Ghaziabad, whereby the court concerned has directed the doctor to be summoned under section 311 Cr.P.C. and summons have been issued accordingly.
The order is challenged on the ground that the arguments had been concluded and directions have been issued to the applicant to submit bond under section 437-A Cr.P.C., and therefore, at this stage the order impugned could not be passed.
Petition is opposed by learned A.G.A. for the State.
Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or. recall and re- examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."
Perusal of the provision would go to show that the court concerned at any stage of trial is empowered to summon any person as a witness. A perusal of the order impugned would go to show that arguments were advanced in the matter on the ground that an offence under section 308 IPC is not made out because x-ray report was not proved in evidence. It appears that the court concerned for such reasons has thought it appropriate to summon the doctor who was the material witness, particularly as the issue was as to whether the offence under section 308 IPC is made out or not?
The order of the court concerned summoning the doctor under section 311 IPC appears to be based upon materials brought on record and would clearly be within its jurisdiction. No illegality is shown in the matter nor the order can be said to be an abuse
of the process of law so as to require any interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. Challenge laid to the order, accordingly, fails.
It goes without saying that the court concerned shall proceed with the trial without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.6.2018 Ashok Kr.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order summoning a material witness under S. 311 Cr.P.C. after arguments were concluded.
Whether the impugned order amounts to an abuse of the process of law under S. 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pankaj And Another
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
