Partly allowed

Ramashankar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2019A482/31405/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Leave Petition arising under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of criminal proceedings due to alleged defects in an order passed under Section 311 CrPC. The court held the order was valid, refused the quashing plea, but directed expeditious disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Principal application to quash proceedings dismissed; Trial Court directed to decide case within three months and ensure witness presence.

Ramashankar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31405 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ramashankar And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 1970 of 2012 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Badagaon, District - Varanasi and the order dated 15.7.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Varanasi. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the order dated 15.7.2019 was passed after a lapse of 12 years. It was duty of complainant to examine the witness concerned. Since earlier application moved by the opposite party no.2 under Section 311 CrPC was not persuaded, fresh application moved for the same cause of action ought not to have allowed. It is next contended that complainant wants to prolong the proceeding. Discretionary power vested under Section 311 CrPC should not be exercised in the present matter. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Abdul Sattar vs. State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. and others, 2015 LawSuit(All) 2390 . The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer and submitted that impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶9

In this matter, as is evident from record, though matter was fixed for statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC and thereafter application under Section 311 CrPC was moved yet the concerned Magistrate / Court while passing the impugned order has observed that examination of doctor concerned, who has prepared the medical report, was essential for just decision of the case.

¶10

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also keeping in view the provisions of Section 311 CrPC and the observations recorded by the trial court in the impugned order dated 15.7.2019, I am of the view that grounds taken in the application are not sufficient to allow the application. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶11

However, the Court concerned is directed to ensure presence of the witness concerned and decide the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it fixing short dates .

¶12

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.9.2019

¶14

safi

Ramashankar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramashankar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kameshwar and Others Vs State of U.P.

Kaushal Kishore and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Umesh Alias Dulley and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shaym Sunder Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritu Raj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others