Mirajul Hasaon v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
This order quashes an impugned order rejecting a Section 311 Cr.P.C. application to recall witnesses. The High Court held that non-compoundability does not inherently preclude recalling witnesses for a just decision and remitted the matter for fresh hearing. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order dated 30.03.2022 quashing the witness recall application was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court to pass a fresh order within two weeks.
What the court decided
Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20060 of 2022
Applicant :- Mirajul Hasaon Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Shadab Naqvi,Sunil Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., and perused material on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.1, District Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 597 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Rahat Ali), arising out of Case Crime No. 137 of 2021, under section 376/506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Chajlait, District Moradabad, whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the informant and the victim has been rejected as well as to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant during pendency of trial, the applicant, who is informant in the present case and the opposite party no.2 have entered into compromise and thus the informant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. annexing therewith the affidavit, with a prayer to recall the witnesses for just decision of the case but the learned trial Judge vide order impugned had rejected the application filed under section 311 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the offence is not compoundable, apart from the same certain other observations has been made, while rejecting the aforesaid application.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an order rejecting Section 311 Cr.P.C. application solely because the offence is non-compoundable is sustainable.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to recall witnesses for a just decision in a compounded offence scenario.
Whether the High Court should quash the impugned order and remit the matter for passing a fresh order.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mirajul Hasaon
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Gautam Chowdhary
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/20060/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court