This Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned order that rejected a belated application for further cross-examination of prosecution witness PW-1 due to delay and lack of merit.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; no cross-examination allowed.
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. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5144 of 2018
Applicant :- Pradeep Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava,Ajay Kr. Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is moved seeking quashing of impugned order dated 7.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 4, Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 228 of 2011 (State Vs. Pradeep Sharma and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 1738 of 2009, under Sections 307, 323, 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, whereby an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that it is a dispute of husband and wife, hence, a lenient view should be adopted and the impugned order dated 7.11.2017 should be set-aside. The accused-applicants may be allowed to further cross-examine PW-1. The earlier counsel could not put the questions which were mentioned in the said application, on which the crossexamination was requested to be allowed.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
It is recorded in the impugned order that the testimony of PW-1 was concluded on 6.8.2013. After the accused-applicants having been given several opportunity to cross-examine PW-1, the said application has been moved at a belated stage only with a view to linger on the proceedings and to fill up the gaps in evidence which could not be allowed to give undue advantage to the accused. Accordingly, the said application has been found devoid of any merit. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said order. It is well considered order passed on the application. Accordingly, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.3.2018 A.P. Pandey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application deserves to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the belated filing of the application constitutes an abuse of process of law.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Pradeep Sharma
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
