Dismissed

Ravi Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024A482/9896/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order rejecting a request for re-summoning prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination by another counsel, holding that such re-summoning lacks legal justification when witnesses were already cross-examined at length.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ravi Kumar vs State of Up and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9896 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raksha Chauhan,Upendra Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

1. List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The Vakalatnama of Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is not on record. Office to trace out the same, place it on record and make a note in the order-sheet about it.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Ravi Kumar, with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1 (Crime Against Women), Fatehpur in Application 311 Cr.P.C. & 231 (2) Cr.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 1031 of 2023 (State Vs. Ravi Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 487 of 2023, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed during the pendency of the present application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was arrested on 24.07.2023 and is in jail since then in the present case. It is submitted that the bail of the applicant has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42938 of 2023 (Ravi Kumar vs. State of U.P.), the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure10 to the affidavit. It is submitted that while rejecting the bail of the applicant this Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial on a day to day basis and passed directions with regards to the same. It is submitted that since the applicant is in jail effective persuasion of his case on his behalf is not being done. It is submitted that in the trial two witnesses being P.W.-1 Ramchandra and P.W.-2 Aditya Verma were examined and their cross-examination was also done by a learned counsel of the applicant but the said counsel was a counsel practicing on the revenue side and as such effective cross-examination could not be done. It is submitted that the applicant wants that the cross-examination of the said two witnesses be done by another learned counsel which would be in the fitness of things and would help in proper and effective disposal of the trial. It is submitted that the applicant shall be

¶10

co-operating in the trial. It is submitted that as such one opportunity be provided for further cross-examination of the said two witnesses and the present petition be allowed by passing directions to the said effect.

¶11

Per contra , learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the order impugned dated 06.03.2024 rejecting the Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. of the applicant numbered as Paper No.21 ब is a detailed and a just & proper order. It is submitted that the court concerned while dealing with the said application has observed that the applicant has two learned counsels and one person has given affidavit on his behalf in his bail application. Only by permitting further cross-examination by another learned counsel of the said two witnesses who have been cross-examined earlier at length cannot be permitted since the same is without any proper justification. It is submitted that even the threats are being extended on behalf of the applicant to the witnesses. It is submitted that the order impugned dated 06.03.2024 is a just & proper order.

¶12

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 06.03.2024 by which the Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. numbered as Paper No.21 ब has been rejected by the trial court which was filed by the applicant for summoning P.W.-1 & P.W.-2 for further cross-examination by another counsel. The perusal of the statements of the said two witnesses go to show that they were crossexamined at length by learned counsel appearing in the trial. There is nothing on record to show that the said cross-examination was disrupted, not permitted or even obstructed at all by anyone. Merely by submitting that the counsel who had earlier cross-examined was not competent and another counsel may be permitted to further cross-examine the said two witnesses cannot be a ground for allowing the prayer in the said application. The re-summoning of a witness on a change of counsel in the trial is not the law as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and another: (2016) 2 SCC 402 . Now moving an application again for re-summoning them for further cross-examination again in no manner can be said to be justified. There is no ground to interfere in the present petition.

¶13

8. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.7.2024 AS Rathore

¶15

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ravi Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Smt. Suman Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sadanand Saini and Another vs State of Up and Another

Vivek Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Raju Singh Alias Himanshu Singh vs State of Up and Another

Juvenile X vs State of Up and 3 Others

Ramsiya vs State of U.P. and 4 Others