Dismissed

Monu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2019A482/41781/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses the quashing of a lower court order rejecting a request to recall witnesses for re-cross-examination. The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the witnesses had been properly cross-examined and that allowing re-examination solely due to a change of counsel would amount to misuse of process and trial delay.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dismissing the witness recall application was dismissed with no intermediate order.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41781 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

¶6

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case no. 396 of 2016 (State vs. Monu) Case Crime no. 172 of 2016, u/s 363, 368, 376, 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhavanpur, District Meerut.

¶7

The brief background of the case as appears from the record is that the applicant is facing trial u/s 363, 368, 376, 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act and statement of PW-1 was recorded and thereafter PW-1 and PW-2 were examined on 30.3.2018 and both the witnesses were cross examined by applicant's counsel. Thereafter, the applicant on being released on bail moved an application on 13.9.2019 that since he was in jail and his counsel was busy in other work, therefore, certain important facts could not put to her in cross examination and thus PW-2 may be recalled in the interest of justice. The said application was rejected by the trial court by the impugned order.

¶8

Learned counsel has argued that since examination in chief and cross examination of two witnesses were recorded on the same day, counsel could not properly cross examined PW-2 on account of which the applicant, who is facing grave charges u/s 376 IPC would be greatly prejudice and therefore one opportunity may be afforded to defence to cross examine PW-2.

¶9

Per contra learned AGA has submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below. Besides it, even in the application moved u/s 311 Cr.P.C. not a single fact has been detailed as to what material or important fact was left to be cross examined by two witnesses especially PW-2 whose statement was recorded about one and half years back. He further submitted that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should rarely be invoked where the court arrived at a conclusion that recalling of witnesses is absolutely necessary for just decision of the case for strong and valid reasons. It has also been held that solely on the ground that proper cross examination or proper examination has not been done by the

¶10

earlier counsel the witnesses cannot be recalled in a routine manner. It has normally to be presumed that the counsel conducting his case, is competent, particularly, when a counsel is appointed by choice of a litigant.

¶11

I am of the opinion that the application for recalling witnesses has been moved only for the purpose of delaying the trial and since the witnesses have been cross examined properly and merely on the basis of change of counsel re-trial cannot be permitted at this stage as it would amount to misuse of process of law.

¶12

I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has no force and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.11.2019 Dhirendra/

Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu v. State of U.P.

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

Pradeep @ Prudumbh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Golu Alias Ajay and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Kanha Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Dineysh Agrawaal D.K. Agrawal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Javed Mehdi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Baba @ Ashok Panth Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others