The High Court application seeking quashment of an order rejecting a witness recall application was dismissed. The Court held that the matter was not maintainable as the legal history of the witness recall was already closed in relevant proceedings.
Application dismissed as not maintainable.
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. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30781 of 2018
Applicant :- Rajiv @ Gabbar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By way of the instant application, the applicant has sought for quashment of the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Agra, in Session Trial No.486 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.63 of 2010 under Sections 147, 436, 304, 332, 353 IPC, Police Station Mantola, District Agra.
One recall application earlier moved for recalling PW-4, whose evidence was led on 28.07.2016 was rejected by the trial court concerned vide its order dated 01.08.2018. That order was challenged before this Court by way of filing Application U/S 482 No.27639 of 2018 which was dismissed on 13.08.2018, copy whereof has been annexed as annexure no.4 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. Yet another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved before the trial court again for recalling PW-4 on the ground that certain questions were left out in cross examination to be put to PW-4. The history of the case insofar as it relates to moving the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C stood closed on the very date when the prayer for recalling PW-4 was on challenge refused by this Court.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant application is not maintainable and is dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 5.9.2018 rkg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for quashing of an impugned order recalling a prosecution witness is maintainable in the circumstances.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to recall a witness whose application was dismissed and a related Section 311 Cr.P.C. challenge refused.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajiv @ Gabbar
State Of U.P.
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
