Allowed

Smt. Suita @ Jafirun v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2024A482/5959/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed an order rejecting an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for granting an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The trial court had failed to provide the necessary opportunity despite its value

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.05.2024 set aside; trial court directed to provide opportunity for cross-examination of P.W. 1 to 3.

Smt. Suita @ Jafirun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80959

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5959 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Suita @ Jafirun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Chaudhary,Mirza Shahid Baig Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶8

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 31.05.2024 passed in S.T. No. 553 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 48 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Itiyathok, District Gonda.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted in mechanical manner. Thereafter, charges have also wrongly been framed. It is also submitted that during the course of trial, the applicant was on bail. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant, who is an illiterate lady, was not aware about the proper engagement of the lawyer. It is next submitted that examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 was conducted and opportunity of cross-examination of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 was also given to other accused persons, but since the applicant had not engaged any counsel, no opportunity was given to her to cross-examine the P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 and the court concerned proceeded with the trial. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the applicant was living separately, but this fact was not asked from P.W. 1 to P.W. 3. It is lastly submitted that application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the trial court in mechanical manner vide impugned order dated

¶10

31.05.2024 with the observation that as to why the objection was not raised by the applicant at the appropriate stage, though it is nowhere mentioned that the applicant denied the opportunity for cross-examination of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3, which was provided to her. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the trial court has rightly rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with the observation that the objection was to be raised by the applicant at the appropriate time, but the same has not been done by her. It is, thus, submitted that the application has no merit and, therefore, the same may be dismissed.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is undisputed fact that the opportunity of cross-examination of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 was not given to the applicant, which is her valuable right.

¶13

In view of above facts and circumstances, order dated 31.05.2024 is hereby set aside. Trial court is directed to provide one opportunity to the applicant for crossexamination of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 by fixing a date.

¶14

The application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 VKS

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Suita @ Jafirun v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Suita @ Jafirun v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Awadhesh Kumar Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Shikhar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Additional Chief Secretary Department of Home and Anr.

Ghanshyam Chandra Kaushal @ Ghanshyam Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) Lko.

Naresh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Anr.

Rajeev Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Subhash Chandra Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another