Disposed

Greesh Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2023CRLR/2871/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 2871 of 2022, the Allahabad High Court disposed of a challenge to an order summoning prosecution witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The court held the order lacked infirmity but noted the trial court must provide cross-examination opportunities if witnesses are examined.

What did the court decide?

The present criminal revision is disposed off without further orders on the merits of the challenge.

Greesh Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2871 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Greesh Gupta And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Prakash Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶5

Despite service of notice, no one is present on behalf of opposite party nos.2 & 3.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been preferred to set aside the judgement and order dated 27.05.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etah in S.T. No.389 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.142 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Aliganj, District Etah.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the revisionists are innocent and have not committed the present offence. It is further submitted that the impugned order is nothing but an an abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the revisionists with the motive to filling up the lacuna during trial, which is against the law and the same is rejected by the trial court.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. He further submitted that the order has been passed considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

In V.N. Patil Vs. Niranjan Kumar (2021) 3 SCC 661 , it was held that the aim of every court is to discover the truth. Section 311 Cr.P.C. is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested in court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be exercise judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meed the ends of justice.

¶12

From the perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the prosecution left over witnesses have been ordered to be examined. The proposed witnesses are stated to be witnesses to the alleged incident/occurrence. Trial court has found it necessary to examine them in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. Further more order summoning witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order as it does not decide any substantial rights of litigating parties. However, if the proposed witnesses have been examined, the ample opportunity of cross examining them should have been given by the trial court.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the present revision is disposed off .

¶14

Order Date :- 6.4.2023

¶15

Sanjeet

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Greesh Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Greesh Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhat Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raees and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vedpal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Karan @ Darbari Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mrs. Kajal Agarwal @ Simmi Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another