Disposed

Chhatra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home, And Another

Allahabad HC26 May 2022A482/12438/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application alleging prejudice due to denied cross-examination, the court directed the trial court to fix a single date for the applicant to complete cross-examination of PW-1 upon payment of Rs. 5,000/-, dismissing further requests.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to fix a single date for the applicant to conclude the cross-examination of PW-1 upon payment of Rs. 5,000/-.

Chhatra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. through… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12438 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chhatra Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home, And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pravesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pravesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶6

By way of filing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant prays for quashing the impugned judgement/order dated 4.1.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 209 of 1989, case crime No. 22 of 1986, under Sections 498A, 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat, pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Dehat.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to illness of his counsel, applicant who is accused in the present case could not cross examined (PW-1) Mahendra Singh and court below close the opportunity of cross-examination of PW-1. He further submitted that applicant never intended to delay the proceeding of the court below and as matter is of Sections 498A, 302, 306, 201 IPC, therefore, if opportunity to cross-examine (PW-1)-father of the deceased, is not given to him then applicant would be greatly prejudiced. Learned counsel further submitted that he is ready to cross-examine (PW-1)Mahendra Singh on any date fixed either by this Court or by the court below. He further submitted that he will conclude the cross-examination of PW-1 in a day and only one day may be given to the applicant to cross-examine PW-1. He further submitted that court below could not properly analyze the facts of the case and also failed to consider the prejudice caused to applicant and without any good reason, order dated 4.1.2022 was passed against him and his application to cross-examine PW-1 was refused.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the trial of the case is surprisingly very old and the matter is pending before the court concerned since 1989 and the incident is of the year 1986 and it is a case in which applicant is facing murder charge of his wife. Learned AGA further submitted that ample opportunity was given to applicant to cross-examine PW-1 and in spite of that applicant did not cross-examine PW-1. He further submitted that applicant is trying to delay the proceeding of the case and this fact itself is apparent from his application moved before the trial court on which the impugned order was passed. He further submitted that application dated 3.12.2021 shows that a prayer was made to recall PW-1 and PW-2 for re-examination-in-chief and cross-examination of both the witnesses. He further submitted that application moved by applicant was misconceived one and witnesses can not be recalled for re-examination-in-

¶9

chief who have already been examined before the trial court. Learned AGA further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 4.1.2022.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶11

The present case is the case in which applicant is facing murder trial for murder charge of his wife which is pending before the court concerned since 1989. Although it is not clear from the record that why the trial of the case is still pending for last about more than 30 years but impugned order shows that the examination-in-chief of PW-1 was recorded on 15.9.2021 and on 15.9.2021 applicant prayed to fix a further date for his cross-examination on the ground of illness of his counsel but on the same date the opportunity for cross-examination of the applicant was closed by the court below. As the present matter relates to Sections 498-A, 302, 306, 201 IPC and on same day when examination-in-chief of PW-1 was recorded then opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 by applicant was closed by the court concerned, therefore, one opportunity should be given to the applicant to examine PW-1. As far as prayer to cross-examine PW-2 Iqbal is concerned, this prayer appears to be misconceived as impugned order clearly shows that the opportunity to cross-examine him is not closed.

¶12

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, one opportunity is given to the applicant to cross-examine (PW-1) Mahendra Singh at a cost of Rs. 5000/- and trial court is directed to fix a date for crossexamination of PW-1 by the applicant and that on the date fixed by the trial court when PW-1 will appear before the court concerned then applicant shall pay him Rs. 5,000/- as a cost and on single date as fixed by the trial court, counsel for the applicant shall conclude the cross-examination of PW-1 and no further date shall be given in this regard.

¶13

With the aforesaid direction, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off .

¶14

Order Date :- 26.5.2022 Ankita

¶15

Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.05.30 19:01:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chhatra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home, And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home, 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

Khalid and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahroz Mohammad Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Surendra Kumar (Advocate) Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Vipul Singh Bhadauriya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another