Dismissed

Suraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2021A482/4686/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Suraj to quash an order refusing permission for re-examination of prosecution witnesses. The court held the trial court applied its mind correctly and there was no illegality in the order.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the order dated 10.01.2020 and stay proceedings was refused and application dismissed.

Suraj Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4686 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Rao,Om Prakash Singh (Senior Adv.)

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhawna Verma,Siya Ram Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.2, Mirzapur in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2017 (State vs. Suraj) as well as to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case till the re-examination of the prosecution witness under section 311 I.P.C.

¶8

The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is that the previous counsel engaged in this case had not asked the relevant questions from the prosecution witnesses and therefore subsequent counsel seeks permission for reexamination of witnesses. Further submission is that an application was filed on 13.11.2019 under section 311 Cr.P.C. by the accused before the learned Trial Court but the same has been dismissed without applying the judicial mind by the learned Trial Court on 10.01.2020.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in case of Amarjeet @ Kalwa Vs. State of U.P. and Another in Application U/s 8463 of 2020.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶11

From perusal of the order dated 10.01.2020, it transpires that in the case, the prosecution witnesses have been examined and cross examined on several dates in which the applicant's counsel has cross-examined all of them.

¶12

Perused the judgement on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant, which is not applicable in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances, argument advanced and after going entire order as well as in the light of

¶13

judgement passed by this Court on 21.9.2020 in Application U/s 482 No.4300 of 2020 , this court is of the view that the arguments advanced by the counsel is not sustainable. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, the prayer of the applicants is refused.

¶14

The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.9.2021 shiv

Suraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj 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

Alamara and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Shweta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nafees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Sri Saddiq Vs State of U.P.