Single Bench allowed no application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the rejection of a Section 311 application. The Court held that the application was an afterthought, lacked relevancy, and could not be entertained.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed as no good ground to entertain the present application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8111
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1275 of 2025 Applicant :- Atul Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
2. Perused the record.
of above submission, learned A.G.A. submits that it is true that Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision to enable the Court to find out the truth and therefore, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. However, the jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has now been circumferenced by the Apex Court. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2013) 14 SCC 46 1, learned A.G.A. submits that bona fide of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be judged in accordance with the parameters laid down in the aforementioned judgment. It is then contended that the Court has gone further and now provided that not only the proposed questions, which are desired to be put to the witness should be stated but also the relevancy of the same should also be submitted. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused applicants only discloses the questions that are proposed to be put but not the relevancy of the same. Apart from the above, application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused applicants after detailed examination-inchief of the witness i.e. P.W.-3 had taken place and by the new counsel who was subsequently engaged by the accused applicants. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to entertain the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused as an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be filed on the basis of afterthought.
10 . It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajeev Misra, J.)
Order Date :- 17.1.2025/Sushil/-
Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow an application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which was raised after the examination-in-chief and lacked demonstration of
Whether the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed in bona fide and on the basis of an afterthought.
Whether the principles of natural justice require the High Court to allow an application for additional questions to the witness at a late stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of BiharReferred¶10
(2013) 14 SCC 46 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Atul Kumar and Another
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
