In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought to quash an order refusing recall of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. The application was dismissed as it was filed at a belated stage without plausible explanation despite pending proceedings for years.
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. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10712 of 2019
Applicant :- Ramesh @ Guddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yashpal Yadav,Lalji Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge/|Fast Track Court, Mainpuri in S.T. No.480 of 2006 (State vs. Ramesh) arising out of Case Crime No.C-16/2004 under Sections 498A, 302 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationBhogaon, District Mainpuri with further prayer to issue suitable direction to the court concerned to summon P.W.-3 Ram Singh and P.W.-6 Shiv Raj Singh for cross-examination.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 09.11.2004, F.I.R was lodged with regard to incident dated 16.09.2004 against the applicant registered as Case Crime No.C-16/2004, under Sections 498A/302 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhogaon, District Mainpuri. After investigation, investigating officer submitted chargesheet, which was registered as Criminal Case No.1502 of 2005. On committing the case to court of session, it was registered as S.T. No.480 of 2006. In the trial, P.W.-3 Ram Singh has tendered his examination-in-chief on 06.05.2015 and his cross examination was closed on 07.05.2015. P.W.-6 Shiv Raj Singh tendered his examination-in-chief before the trial court on 21.07.2017 and his cross examination was closed on 21.07.2017. On 24.11.2018, the applicant has moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.-3 and P.W.-6 for cross examination, which was rejected by the trial court by the impugned order dated 29.01.2019. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in case P.W.-3 and P.W.-6 are not recalled, the applicant will suffer and the case of the applicant will be prejudiced, therefore, the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the trial court is not sustainable and liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted
that in this case the High Court vide its order dated 09.05.2015 has already directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of eight months.
The evidence of prosecution witnesses has already been concluded. The application dated 24.11.2018 moved by the applicant after belated stage only with a view to linger the proceedings. Under the facts of the case, the trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application dated 24.11.2018 of the applicant, therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I find that the trial court in the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 has recorded the specific finding that the present case is pending since last 13 years. The statement of P.W.-3 was already completed on 07.05.2015 and statement of P.W.-6 was also completed on 21.07.2017. In the application of the accused, there is no plausible explanation for not making cross examination to the witnesses by the defence.
In view of above, I find that the presumption drawn and findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 for rejecting the application dated 24.11.2018 of the applicant are not liable to be interfered by this Court.
The application lacks merit and is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.3.2019 SKD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the trial court order rejecting the application for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
Whether the applicant's failure to cross-examine witnesses at the appropriate stage excuses the belated application filed during the trial.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh @ Guddu
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
