Allowed

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jun 2019A482/22665/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed an order rejecting an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning a witness. Held that separate trials require fresh evidence

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.5.2019 set aside; applicant to deposit Rs.3,000 for summoning of Dr. Girish Kumar Kuril and recording his statement; exercise to be completed within one month from production of cer

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22665 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 10.5.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.1, Firozabad in S.T. No. 234 of 2013 (State Vs. Rangilal and others) arising out of case crime no. 234-A of 1998 under sections 147, 307 I.P.C. P.S. Sirsaganj District Firozabad.

¶7

Application of the applicant under section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that summoning of the witness Dr. Girish Kumar Kuril will further delay the trial. The statement of the witness has already been recorded in the cross case and that would be read in the present case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier the same court directed that witness should be examined if evidence is relevant for deciding the present case, such application was moved, which was rejected.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order passed by the trial court on the ground that there is nothing illegal in reading the evidence in the cross case.

¶10

After considering the rival contentions, this court feels that both the trials are separate and statement of the aforesaid witness has been recorded earlier in the cross case. His evidence is also required to be recorded in the present case.

¶11

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the application pending and issuing notice to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

¶12

In case applicant deposits fine of Rs. 3,000/before the court below, it shall summon Dr. Girish Kumar Kuril and get his statement recorded.The fine deposited by the applicant shall be paid @ Rs. 1,000/- each to the Rangi Lal, Jyanti Lal and Gyan Singh, opposite party nos. 2,3 and 4 in the present application.

¶13

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶14

The order dated 10.5.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.1, Firozabad in S.T. No. 234 of 2013 is set aside.

¶15

The application is allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 26.6.2019 Atul kr. sri.

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Ram @ Ram Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Babu Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bechan Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Dhama and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Subhash Jain Vs State of Up

Afzal Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and another