Dismissed

Parveen @ Manda v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2022CRLR/2642/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision against an order rejecting an application for summoning a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the High Court found no illegality or material irregularity. The court held the application was moved belatedly to delay the case with no prejudice to the applicant, dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed and original order upholding the rejection of Section 311 Cr.P.C. application maintained.

Parveen @ Manda Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2642 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Parveen @ Manda Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sumit Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.06.2022 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.15, Saharanpur in S.T. No.525 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.169 of 2018, under Section 304, 201 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur, pending before learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.15, Saharanpur by which, the application of the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected and case has been fixed for the statement of the witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that Indu Siddharth P.W.3 was the Investigating Officer of the case and he had been examined earlier. Total ten witnesses have been examined. The main submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that there is contradictions in the statements of witness P.W.7 and P.W.10 and due to this reason, the applicant wants to summon the witness for re-cross-examination.

¶8

Thus, the trial Court has opined that application has been moved after three years from the evidence with intend to delay the case. The applicant is not prejudiced by the impugned order.

¶9

In view of the above, there appears no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order and at this stage, no interference is required in the impugned order by this Court. This criminal revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

This criminal revision is dismissed , accordingly.

¶11

Order Date :- 10.8.2022 Monika

¶12

Digitally signed by MONIKA KESARWANI Date: 2022.08.11 15:01:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Parveen @ Manda v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen @ Manda 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Vishwakarma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

RajKumar Vs State of up thru its principal secretary home and 2 others

Mustkeem Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Saurabh Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shamshudeen @ Kaliya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another