Dismissed

Suresh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024/9421/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing an order rejecting a Section 311 Cr.P.C. application. The court held that recalling a witness is not permissible merely to fill lacunae when no specific questions for cross-examination were proposed.

What did the court decide?

None granted. The application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Suresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75184

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9421 of 2024 Applicant :- Suresh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Dwivedi,Mayank Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 14.06.2024 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Unnao in SST No.1449/2022 arsing out of Case Crime No.309 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.- Makhi, DistrictUnnao; State Vs. Suresh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that victim was examined and cross-examined during the course of trial, thereafter, new counsel was engaged and it was found that there were several contradictions in the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as deposition given before the trial court, thereafter, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on 20.05.2024 after completion of the prosecution evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 but the same was rejected in the most mechanical manner. He further submitted that in the interest of justice, witness was to be recalled for cross-examination, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶8

Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of applicant and submitted that on the ground of engagement of new counsel, witness cannot be recalled. He further submitted that no specific question has been mentioned in the application under Section 311 CrPC which is to be asked from

¶9

the witness and only general averments have been made that there are contradictions in the statement of victim. He also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Nazre Alam Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. in Application U/S 482 No.9250 of 2024 and submitted that the present application is liable to be rejected.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of application, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that no specific question has been mentioned that is to be asked from the witness and only general averments have been made in the application and only with the intention to fill up the lacuna, witness cannot be recalled.Therefore, the present application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶11

In view of the above, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 V. Sinha

¶13

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suresh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Poddar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Manish Kumar Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Devi Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Pradip @ Babloo @ Pramod Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Girish Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ( Crime and Investigation Deptt.) Lko and Another

Ayodhya Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others