The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the trial court's refusal to allow re-summoning of a witness for repetition of cross-examination questions, upholding the order as an attempt to delay the trial.
The application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed as devoid of merit.
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. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44700 of 2019
Applicant :- Rakesh Grover Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 19.10.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.05, Meerut, by which the applicant's application under Section 311 CrPC for re-summoning PW-1 Rachit Mohan has been dismissed.
Perusal of the record shows that PW-1 Rachit Mohan has already appeared before the court below and his examinationin-chief and cross-examination has been recorded way back on 04.10.2016 and the relevant question, which the applicant wants to raise regarding the disputed handwriting on the cheque has already been put to him, however again, when the case has been fixed for final hearing, an application under Section 311 CrPC for re-summoning PW-1 Rachit Mohan has been moved by the applicant and the court below, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has held that relevant question, which the applicant wants to put to PW-1 Rachit Mohan, has already been put to him at the time of cross-examination, which has been completed on 04.10.2016 and the applicant wants to repeat the said exercise just with an intention to linger on the trial and as such, has rejected the aforesaid application under Section 311 CrPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 19.10.2019 passed by the court below.
Per contra, learned AGA has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the question, which the applicant wants to put to PW-1 Rachit Mohan regarding the disputed handwriting has already been brought to his attention at the time of his cross-examination and now, just with an intention to linger on the trial, application under Section 311 CrPC was filed, which has rightly been rejected by the trial court.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering the detailed reasons assigned in the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the applicant's application under Section 311 CrPC and in view of the fact that the question, which the applicant wants to put to PW-1 Rachit Mohan regarding the disputed handwriting has already been put to him in cross-examination, as such, impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and no interference by this Court is required. The said application has been filed only with an intention to delay the trial, as such, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and has rightly been rejected.
Present application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2019 Nadim
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 311 CrPC to re-summon a witness is maintainable when the relevant question was already put during cross-examination.
Whether an impugned order dismissing such an application as an attempt to delay the trial suffers from any illegality or infirmity.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Grover
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
