Dismissed

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Dablu @ Dileep v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 May 2024/4459/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking quashing of an order dismissing a Section 311 application. The court held that the petition was an abuse of process due to unexplained delay and prolonged crossexamination, dismissing the plea and citing Ratanlal. The impugned order was upheld, and the petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 was upheld.

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Dablu @ Dileep Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37621

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4459 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajay Pratap Singh @ Dablu @ Dileep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State.

¶7

Notices to respondent no. 2 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 12/03/2024 passed by Additional District & Session Judge/ FTC IInd Raebareli, in Session Trial No. 207/2016: State vs Abhay Singh &Ors. whereby the application of the petitioner filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the witnesses Kunwar Praveen Singh @ Ketan Singh has been dismissed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the interest of justice, it is relevant for recalling the witnesses, however, learned court below by giving perverse finding has rejected the application.

¶10

Perused the record, so also the impugned order dated 12.03.2024. The operative part of the impugned order is extracted below:-

¶11

" ससननतथनपतनवललकनअवललकनककयन।

¶12

पतनवललककअवललकनसकसपषहहककपतनवललममपल०डबलल० -2 कसकवरपवलणससकहउरर ककतनससकहककमसखयपरलकनकदनन 15.10.2018 कलअ क कतककगयलहह।बचनवपकदनरन उकसनकलसकसजरहकदनन 15.10.2018, 23.02.2019, 06.03.2019, 13.03.2019, 29.05.2019, 15.06.2019, 11.07.2019, 01.08.2019, 17.09.2019, 20.09.2013, 01.10.2019, 31.10.2019. 02.11.2019 कलपलरलककगयलहह।बचनवपकदनरन

¶13

पल०डबलल० -2 कसकवरपवलणससकहउररककतनससकहसकअतयनतकवसत सजरहककजनचसकक हह।उकसजरहममबचनवपकदनरनपल०डबलल० -2 कसकवरपवलणससकहउररककतनससकहसक समसततथययपरपशनपलछकगयकहह।पल०डबलल० -2 कसकवरपवलणससकहउररककतनससकहकन सनकयन क नहहएकईवररबलतचसककहह।पनथरननपतकवलमबसकपसतसतककयकजननककनकलईभल सपषलकरणबचनवपकदनरननहहकदयनगयनहह।पतनवललममअकभयलजनसनकयपलणरहलचसकन हहतथनपतनवललकककनयरवनहलअकभयसकककबयननअनतगरत 313 दक०प०सक०हकतसकनयत चललआरहलहह।पनथरननपत 292 कपथमदषयनपल०डबलल० -22 2 कसकवरपवलणससकहउरर ककतनससकहकलअननवशयकरपसकपभनकवतककयकजननकककआशयसककदयनजनननपतलत हलतनहह।पनथरननपत 292 कसरसरलततरपरकबननककसलपयनरपआधनरककपततसतककयन गयनहह।ऐसलससथकतममपनथरननपत 292 कअनतगरत 311 दक०प०सक०कनरसतककयकजननक यलगयहह।

¶14

आदकश

¶15

अकनयसऊअजयपतनपससकहउररडबललससकहदनरनपसतसतपनथरननपत 292 कअनतगरत 311 दक०प०सक०कनरसतककयनजनतनहह।पतनवललवनसतकबयननअकभयसक 313 दक०प०सक० 02.04.2024 हकतसकदनन कलपकशहल।सभलअकभयसकगणवयककगतरपसकउपससथत हल। "

¶16

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the detailed crossexamination of PW-2 Kunwar Praveen Singh @ Ketan Singh has been done by the accused-petitioner which started from 15.10.2018 and prolonged for 13 months. While moving application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., no explanation has been given by the accused-petitioner as to why the application has been given after such a delay.

¶17

Prima facie, it appears that the application filed by the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. The prosecution evidence has closed long back. No reason has been given for moving the application after such a delay and after prolonged examination which continued for more than one year.

¶18

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of "Ratanlal Vs. Prahlad Jat & Ors (2017) 9 SCC 340", I find no illegality in the order impugned.

¶19

The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed .

¶20

Order Date :- 15.5.2024 R.C.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Dablu @ Dileep v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Dablu @ Dileep v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kapura Devi @ Kapuri Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Javed Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Amit Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Durgesh Agnihotri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Dablu @ Dileep vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Afzal Ahmad and Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko. and Another