Dismissed

Surekha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2024CRLP/4406/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the rejection of an application for fresh cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO case, holding that the trial court acted correctly to prevent delay.

What did the court decide?

Directing the trial court to expedite and conclude proceedings without unnecessary adjournments.

Surekha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49585

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4406 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Surekha Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Pratap Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Narendra Pratap Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been moved to quash the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dated 23.02.2024 in Case Crime No.208/2022, S.S.T. POCSO No.572 of 2022, under Sections 328, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the learned court below for fresh cross-examination of the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. He further submits that in the proceedings of the present case, the entire evidence has been completed and the case is fixed for statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused. He further submits that the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 may be called for fresh cross-examination for better adjudication of the case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A.-I for the State opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and he submits that the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 by which application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner was rejected has been rightly passed. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The entire evidence is completed and the accused has been called for his statement to be recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is just a ploy adopted by the petitioner to delay the trial by moving the aforesaid application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. There is no justification to call the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 for fresh cross-examination.

¶10

After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties as well as after perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner before the learned trial court as the same is moved only with intention to delay the proceedings of trial. The P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have already been cross-examined and the matter is fixed for statement of the accused to be recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, this Court finds no proper justification to entertain the instant writ petition and also to interfere in the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned trial court as the same has been rightly passed and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, it appears that the present writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned trial court concerned is directed to expedite and conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid case expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties from the date of receiving of copy of this order, unless there is some legal impediment or unless there is any order passed by the higher court staying the proceedings of the case.

¶13

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 Saurabh

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surekha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surekha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

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

Jagat Narayan Mishra Thru. Her Daughter Smt. Sushila Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

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

Adya Thru. Father Nikhil Srivastava and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko vs Harihar Prasad and 6 Others

Ram Autar and 3 Others. Vs State of U.P.

Moqeem Vs State of U.P.