Dismissed

Krishna Kumar Pal @ Umesh Pal v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2020A482/2748/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking expeditious disposal of a pending sessions trial, holding that the prayer lacked merit as the operation of the impugned order had already been kept in abeyance in a prior application filed by the same applicant.

What did the court decide?

Granteed no relief; application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Krishna Kumar Pal @ Umesh Pal Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2748 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Pal @ Umesh Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nayab Ahmad Khan,Ravindra Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anurag Bajpai, holding brief of Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the private opposite parties as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause as well as in the memo of application during course of the day.

¶7

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to pass appropriate order for day to day trial and expeditious disposal of Sessions Trial No.1336 of 2009 (State Vs. Atiq Ahmad and others) arising out of case crime no.270 of 2007 under sections 147, 148, 323, 149, 341, 342, 364, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad / Prayagraj pending in the Court of Special Judge, MP/MLA/ Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Allahabad within a stipulated period.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that although applicant himself had approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. by means of application u/s 482 No.- 820 of 2020 and order dated 18.12.2019 passed under section 311 Cr.P.C. to re-examine the applicant was stayed. Yet, despite specific direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, trial is not being concluded by the trial court. It is further submitted that order dated 18.12.2019 was non-speaking order, therefore, applicant approached this Court. Order dated 9.1.2020 passed in the aforesaid application is no bar to direct the trial court to expedite the trial. At this juncture, in support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following decisions :

¶9

1. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Versus Mohan Singh and others, (1975) 3 Supreme Court Cases 706.

¶10

2. Anil Khadkiwala Versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another, (Criminal Appeal No.1157 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2663 of 2017).

¶11

Sri Trivedi, learned senior advocate appearing for the private opposite parties states that since applicant himself had approached this Court challenging the order under section 311 Cr.P.C. and effect and operation of order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the trial court had been stayed. No specific direction can be given to the trial court to decide the trial expeditiously pending the application u/s 482 No. - 820 of 2020.

¶12

I have considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

¶13

In the earlier application u/s 482 No. - 820 of 2020 moved by the applicant himself, this Court passed the following order on 9.1.2020 :

¶14

" 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶15

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 passed by Special Judge (MP/MLA), Allahabad in Session Trial No. 1336 of 2009 (State vs. Ateeq Ahmad and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 342, 366, 501 IPC, Police Station-Dhoomanganj, District-Allahabad whereby the applicant was summoned for cross examination.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11218 of 2018 was filed by the accused persons in which following order was passed:-

¶17

"Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Sri Rishi Chadha, learned AGA for the State.

¶18

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 09.02.2018 passed by Addl. District and Session Judge, Court No.14, Allahabad in S.T. No. 1336/2009 (Crime No. 270/2007), State vs. Javed, under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 341, 342, 364, 504, 506, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Dhoomanganj, Allahabad and for a further direction to recall PW-1 and PW-2 for crossexamination in the ongoing sessions trial under reference.

¶19

The court has been taken through the order sheet at length.

¶20

Sri Rishi Chadha, learned AGA appearing for the State and Sri Rakesh Dubey appearing on behalf of the complainant have shown to the Court that it is only an effort to scuttle the disposal of the trial that this application to recall witnesses has been made and the accused has been given adequate opportunity to cross-examine, and, in fact, they have cross-examined the witnesses at length. They were present in court during

¶21

cross-examination, brought from jail.

¶22

The order of the learned Sessions Judge declining the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶23

This application is accordingly dismissed in limine."

¶24

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the accused persons approached before the Hon'ble Apex Court by means of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 4256 of 2018, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.07.2018, copy of which order has been appended as Annexure no.8 to this application. Subsequently, another application moved before the concerned court below for cross examination of PW-1 (Krishna Kumar Pal @ Umesh Pal) and PW-2 (Dilip Pal) and the same has been allowed by the concerned court below vide order dated 18.12.2019. It has further been submitted that although in the earlier application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused persons, it has been held that the filing of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was only an effort to scuttle the disposal of trial as the accused persons has already been given adequate opportunity to cross examination, therefore, the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 has been passed in arbitrary and mechanical manner. Hence, the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 is liable to quashed.

¶25

5. Matter requires consideration.

¶26

6. Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.

¶27

7. Issue notice to opposite party nos.2 and 3 returnable at an early date.

¶28

8. Opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶29

9. List thereafter.

¶30

10. Till the next date of listing, the operation and effect of the order dated 18.12.2019 shall be kept in abeyance so far as the applicant is concerned.

¶31

Order Date :- 9.1.2020 "

¶32

In the instant case, specific prayer has been made by the applicant, who was also applicant in the aforesaid application u/s 482 No. - 820 of 2020, that the court below be directed to conclude the trial on day to day basis which is pending before the court below. If the prayer made in the present application as well as in the application u/s 482 No. - 820 of 2020 are compared with the order passed in the application u/s 482 No. - 820 of 2020, prayer made in the present application cannot be allowed as on the application of the applicant himself, effect and operation of the order dated 18.12.2019 has been kept in abeyance so far as the applicant is concerned vide order dated 9.1.2020 passed on the application u/s 482 No. - 820 of 2020.

¶33

Application, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

Order Date :- 10.2.2020 ss

Krishna Kumar Pal @ Umesh Pal v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Pal @ Umesh Pal v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

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

Pradeep Kumar Kardam Vs State of U.P.and Another

Diwakar and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ratan Singh Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Hukum @ Hukumi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Balveer Vs State of U.P. and Another