In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the applicant求 quashing of a trial court order allowing cross-examination of a witness and forbade recalling him. The court held the trial court's order was without infirmity.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was 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. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40958 of 2022
Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Gopal,Devashish Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By moving this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., prayer is made to quash the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by A.S.J./ F.T.C. Ist, Bhadohi in S.T.No. 146 of 2019 and 18 of 2019, under sections 302, 376, 201 I.P.C., police station Chauri District Bhadohi, arising out of case crime no. 29 of 2018 and further prayer is made not to recall witness- applicant for re-examination in the aforesaid case.
By order dated 13.10.2022, the application dated 3.6.2022 of the accused persons for permission to cross examine P.W.-3 has been allowed. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the statement of P.W.-4 is continued. The application had been moved after a long time of passing the order regarding closing the evidence of P.W.-3, hence, the application has wrongly been allowed by the trial court.
Prayer is opposed by learned A.G.A.
From perusal of the order sheet dated 13.10.2022 of the trial court file, it appears that the application was allowed on the ground that it was formally opposed by the first informant.
If we go through the file, admittedly, the statement of P.W.-3 was recorded on 18.2.2022 and for rest cross examination date 4.3.2022 was fixed by the trial court. On 4.3.2022 in the absence of the learned counsel for the applicant his opportunity to cross examine P.W.-3 was closed. After order dated 4.3.2022 till date the statement of P.W.-4 has not been started as per order sheet placed before the court. Application dated 13.10.2022 appended at page 84 of the paper book is said to have moved by the plaintiff himself in the trial court that the application dated 20.5.2022 of the accused is pending for recall of cross examination of P.W.-3, that application must be disposed of, so that the cross examination of
P.W.-4 may be done. The application dated 20.5.2022 of the accused persons in trial court is appended at page 79 of the paper book wherein endorsement of the objection by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is there. Though order sheet dated 20.5.2022 does not show that this application was moved by the accused on 20.5.2022 in the court, but the application dated 20.5.2022 is appended at page 79 of the paper book. In the application of the first informant the date of application made by accused side is mentioned as 20.5.2022 and on this application, the objection has been endorsed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on 3.6.2022. These dates show that after the statement of P.W.-3 was recorded on 18.2.2022 and further for rest cross examination date 4.3.2022 was fixed, on the very that day, in the absence of the learned counsel for the accused, his opportunity of cross examining P.W.-3 was closed. After this order dated 4.3.2022, the application dated 20.5.2022 is said to have been moved by the accused counsel to recall the order dated 4.3.2022. Thus this delay of 2 and 1/2 months in moving the recall application cannot be said an inordinate delay, specifically when the statement of subsequent witness was not started by the trial court.
In my opinion, the order dated 13.10.2022 does not suffer from any infirmity. There is no good ground to recall the order dated 13.10.2023.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. having no merit is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 6.4.2023 Gss
Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the trial court order allowing the accused permission to cross-examine P.W.-3 and not recall the witness.
Whether the delay in moving the recall application constitutes an inordinate delay warranting intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari
State Of U.P.
Sadhna Rani Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
