Dismissed

Santosh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2019A482/42553/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the applicant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the trial court's rejection of a request to recall prosecution witnesses. It explained that recalling witnesses to prove compromise is impermissible in heinous non-compoundable offences like gang-rape.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing the impugned order was refused. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial within three months.

Santosh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42553 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Azad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.9.2019 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Jhansi in Application 61B under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No.22 of 2016 (State vs. Santosh), pursuant to Charge-sheet No.68 of 2015 dated 7.12.2015 in Case Crime No.24 of 2015, under Sections 354, 376-D, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Uldan, District- Jhansi, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall PW-1 & PW-2 for crossexamination.

¶7

It appears that an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.-1, Smt. Shanti, the prosecutrix and her husband, P.W.-2 has been made on the ground that parties have entered into compromise and in order to proof the compromise the said witnesses may be recalled as Sections 376-D, 504, 506 I.P.C. are not compoundable.

¶8

I may record that the incident of gang-rape took place in the year 2015 and the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 were recorded in the year 2016 and the prosecutrix has fully supported the prosecution case.

¶9

Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State has strongly opposed the prayer for recalling the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and submitted that the witnesses cannot be recalled under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in order to prove compromise, especially, in heinous offence like gang-rape. Besides it, the compromise has no sanctity in the eyes of law.

¶10

I have gone through the impugned order passed by the trial court and the trial Judge is perfectly justified in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the applicant relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Rama Paswan and others vs. State of Jharkhand,

¶11

2007 CRL. L. J. 2750 . Therefore, I do not find any merit in the application which may warrant any interference by this Court in the exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 17.9.2019 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Jhansi is hereby refused.

¶13

It appears that the applicants have been tampering with the prosecution witnesses, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of aforesaid case and conclude the same in accordance with law on day to day basis in consonance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶15

Office is directed to communicate the order to the court concerned within three days.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.12.2019 Vikas

Santosh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh and 2 Others 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

Dan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Shivnath and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Braj Pal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Kishan Vs State of U.P.

Sri Jahid Beg Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others