Single judge dismissed the applicant's Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking to quash an order refusing to recall witnesses. The court held no sufficient ground existed for recall given the stage of the trial and lack of material irregularity.
Application to quash the order refusing recall of witnesses is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9872 of 2022 Applicant :- Neel Mani Yadav @ Uttam Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pooja Singh,Ram Singh
Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicants, Shri Ram Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 09.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 13, Allahabad, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 333 of 2005 (State Vs. Lalmani Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 311 of 2021, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Karchhana, District- Prayagraj.
Learned counsel for applicants submitted that previous counsel has not put any question on the point of place of occurrence, motive as well as distance of the witnesses from the place of incident. It is also submitted that there is a cross case S.T. No. 127/2006 in Case Crime No. 29/2002 pending in the same court in which formal witnesses have been examined.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer made by applicants.
From the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that PW-1 is complainant, PW-2 is injured who has been cross examined by the learned counsel for applicant in detail. All probable question has been put before witness. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 has been recorded about 15 years ago and there is no sufficient reason for recall of the said witnesses. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and case is fixed in argument and this court has ordered to dispose of the said case within six months.
It is true that both Session Trial Nos. 333/2005 & 127/2006 will be decided together being cross case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 is not proper to recall for filling in the gaps. Grounds for recall the witnesses is insufficient.
There is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. It is not a fit case in which inherent power should be exercised in favour of the applicants.
The prayer made by applicant to quash the impugned order in the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 21.7.2022/Sharad/-
Digitally signed by SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.25 09:28:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses to fill gaps in evidence.
Whether there is material irregularity or illegality in the Additional Session Judge's order refusing to recall witnesses.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Neel Mani Yadav @ Uttam Kumar And 2 Others
State of U.P.
Om Prakash Tripathi
Sharad Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
