The single-judge High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Satya Prakash seeking to quash the trial court's order refusing to discharge witnesses. The court found no illegality, irregularity, or lack of merit in the impugned order.
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. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41529 of 2019 Applicant :- Satya Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for applicant, Sri Maynak Mishra, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.
Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant-Satya Prakash for quashing the impugned order dated 02.09.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16, District Agra on the application 10-B moved by present applicant in Session Trial No.512 of 2015, State versus Ram Singh and others, (Crime No.58 of 2015), under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Khandauli, District Agra.
It appears that aforesaid session trial is pending and going on in the aforesaid Court. Applicant moved an application bearing paper no.10-B before the Court requesting that Nawal Singh and Raj Pal colluded with the accused persons and did not want to support the prosecution hence they be discharged from evidence. Application has been submitted by ADGC criminal.
After hearing both the parties, trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 02.09.2019 on the ground that witnesses are named in charge sheet and present in the Court, therefore, they cannot be discharged being relative of the accused.
Learned Counsel for applicant submits that application has wrongly been dismissed by trial Court, prosecution did not want to produce them in evidence because witnesses are causing damage to the prosecution case.
Despite repeated query by the Court, learned Counsel for applicant did not show any good ground enabling the Court to interfere in the impugned order.
On perusal of impugned order as well as other papers available on file, I do not see any illegality or irregularity committed by trial Court in the impugned order.
Application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.12.2019 I.A.Siddiqui
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere dismissing the applicant's quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash the trial court's order refusing discharge.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satya Prakash
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
