Dismissed

Vineet and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2020A482/1293/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order rejecting a request for re-cross examination of a prosecution witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The court held no illegality or perversity existed in the Trial Court's observation allowing cross-examination later.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; no relief to applicant.

Vineet and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1293 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vineet And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Gautam,Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

This Application U/S 482 has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kasganj in Sessions Trial No. 380 of 2017 (State Vs. Vinit and others) arising out of case crime no. 0556 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Kasganj, district Kasganj rejecting the application (49-Ba)under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and further direct the trial court to recall the complainant/informant (P.W.-1) for further cross examination. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants states that eleven prosecution witnesses have been examined. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to re-cross examine the P.W.-1 was rejected on insufficient grounds. Specific questions were also disclosed in the application for cross examination but this fact has not been considered by the Trial Court. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants referred to the observations recorded by the trial court and argued that if the application is not allowed, impugned order is not set aside, right of the accused applicants will be prejudiced.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶8

I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record.

¶9

In this matter, as is evident from the record, eleven prosecution witnesses in total have been examined by the prosecution. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved to re-cross examine from the P.W.-1 Satyapal after examination of the aforesaid witnesses. Trial Court while rejecting the application moved by the applicant has observed that accused cannot be permitted to run the matter in his own way. It was also observed that ample opportunity had been given to the applicants (accused) for cross examination from P.W.-1 and they also availed

¶10

the same. Thus keeping in view the stage of the trial, prayer made under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected. If the observations recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned order are taken into consideration in the light of the submissions raised across the Bar no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found. Ten more witnesses were examined by the prosecution after examination of P.W.-1 Satyapal. Thus it appears that accused applicants are trying to fill the lacuna. Trial Court has rightly observed that accused cannot be permitted to run the trial in his own way. Only formal witnesses are to be examined. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in the impugned order. It is clarified at this stage that accused applicants have opportunity to prove the facts, sought to be cross examined from the witnesses concerned, at the stage of defence evidence.

¶11

Thus the application being devoid of merit is not liable to be allowed and is dismissed accordingly.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.1.2020 Sachdeva

Vineet and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niyaz Ahemad Vs State of Up and Another

Nakir Ansari Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogendra Kumar and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Alok Luthra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Deepak Vishwas Vs State of U.P. and Another