Dismissed

Ram Naresh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2020A482/13/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant challenged a session court order admitting a late prosecution witness. The single judge dismissed it, finding identical issues and applying the ruling in Sonu vs State of U.P. dated 2nd January 2020 to reject the application.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the order admitting prosecution witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Naresh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Satya Prakash Rathor

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Mr. Ashish Pandey, learned counsel filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Rathor, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 394 of 2013 (State Vs.Ram Naresh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2013, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 304, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Garautha, District-Jhansi whereby the applicant was summoned.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court below, without considering the objection and evidences available on record has passed the impugned order, allowing the application of opposite party no.2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that in the trial of the aforesaid case, the evidences between the parties have already been ended and the trial is at the final stage, therefore, the application filed by the prosecution for examination of Ram Swaroop Verma (Investigating Officer) after 6 years delay, is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the real fact is that when the prosecution thought that the prosecution would not succeed in the instant session trial then with the collusion of said witness, is trying to examine him, in an effort to succeed, which is not permissible under law in any manner. He, therefore, submits that the order impugned, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the evidence on record and is also beyond time, hence the same is liable to be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the

¶11

submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that the order impugned passed by the court below is legal and valid. The court below has recorded pure finding of fact while allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of S.I. Ram Swaroop Verma (Investigating Officer) as prosecution witness as he investigate the matter and record the statement of Devidas. Since Devidas has expired, therefore, examination of S.I. Ram Swaroop Verma as PW-9 is necessary. The court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, he submits that the present application is liable to be rejected.

¶12

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

¶13

Since the issue raised in the present application is similar and identical to that of the case of Sonu Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/s 482 No. - 44125 of 2019) which has been decided by this Bench vide order dated 2nd January, 2020, this application is also dismissed with the same findings and reasons recorded in the aforesaid case.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.1.2020 JK Yadav

Ram Naresh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anand Kumar and 02 Others Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Siyaram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Ali and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manik Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjeet Kumar Alias Raj Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another