Arun Kumar @ Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Arun Kumar @ Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions only: notice to respondent no. 2 both ways, dasti notice through the Office, steps by counsel within three days, affidavit of service by the next date, and listing fresh in the week commencing 01.04.2025. The prayer to quash the order dated 12.02.2025 remains to be considered.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C IIIrd, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 68/2018, rejecting the application dated 31.01.2025 for recall of P.W-8 (Recovery Officer) for cross-examination, should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, the Court held that the matter requires consideration and did not dispose of the application forthwith.

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed issuance of notice to respondent no. 2 both ways; counsel for the applicant to take steps within three days; the Office to provide dasti notice for service upon respondent no. 2 outside the court; the case to be listed in the week commencing 01.04.2025 as fresh; and an affidavit of service to be filed by the next date of listing.

Key takeaways

The Court recorded that the learned A.G.A. was unable to dispute the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manish Kumar, J. — Application U/S 482 No. 1760 of 2025, order dated 20.03.2025 (interim). Arun Kumar @ Raju, a co-accused in Sessions Trial No. 68/2018 (State v. Rajkumar Pasi and others) before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C IIIrd, Raebareli, sought quashing of the order dated 12.02.2025 rejecting his application (No. 155 kha dated 31.01.2025) for recall of P.W-8, the Recovery Officer, for cross-examination. Cross-examination of P.W-8 had been abruptly closed on 18.01.2025 without affording the applicant an opportunity, although the recovery of the stolen goods allegedly purchased by him was effected through P.W-8. The learned A.G.A. was unable to dispute these submissions. Holding that the matter requires consideration, the Court issued notice to respondent no. 2 both ways, permitted dasti service through the Office, directed steps within three days and an affidavit of service, and listed the matter fresh in the week commencing 01.04.2025. No final adjudication was made on the quashing prayer.

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1760 of 2025

Applicant :- Arun Kumar @ Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Samad,Divya Singh,Sunil Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 B.N.S.S) has been preferred with a prayer to quash the order dated 12.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C IIIrd, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 68/2018, State versus Rajkumar Pasi and others' by which the learned trial court has rejected the application no. 155 kha dated 31.01.2025 for recalling the witness no. P.W-8 i.e. Recovery Officer (for crossexamination).

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 18.01.2025, the opportunity to cross examine P.W-8 was abruptly closed by the court concerned without providing any opportunity to the applicant, who is one of the coaccused in the case.

It is further submitted that against the order dated 18.01.2025, the applicant had moved an application on 31.01.2025 for recall of the witness, which was rejected by impugned order dated 12.02.2025.

It is further submitted that from the perusal of the order dated 22.02.2025, it is found that the learned counsel for the co-accused Raj Kumar @ Babban did not cross-examine P.W-8 which was going on from the earlier dates. The trial court abruptly closed the opportunity to cross-examine P.W-8 for all other co-accused persons including the present applicant.

It is further submitted that the applicant has been implicated in the present case as he had purchased the stolen goods from the other co-accused persons and the recovery was made by P.W-8, so the cross-examination of P.W-8 is necessary for the fair adjudication of the case.

Learned A.G.A is unable to dispute the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, the matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to respondent no. 2 both ways.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to take steps within three days.

Office is directed to provide dasti notice to the learned counsel for the applicant for the purpose of service of notice upon respondent no. 2 outside the court.

List this case in the week commencing 01.04.2025, as fresh.

Learned counsel for the applicant may file an affidavit of service by the next date of listing.

Order Date :- 20.3.2025 DiVYa

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench