Vandana Dubey vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106908

Court No. - 82

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2172 of 2025

Applicant :- Vandana Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sheshadri Trivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶7

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.1.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Varanasi passed in application moved under section 311 Cr.p.C. in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 2020, arising out of case crime No. 485 of 2019 (State Vs. Shankar Sharan Dubey and others), under Sections 302, 120B IPC, police station Rohaniya, district Varanasi, (U.P.).

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the informant of the case and she moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial court to summon some witnesses to prove certain public documents but her application moved under section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the court concerned by impugned order dated 7.1.2025.

¶9

He further submitted that for just decision of the case the public documents which till date could not be proved are necessary to be proved and without summoning the concerned witnesses it is not possible to prove the same and therefore, the impugned order dated 7.1.2025 is illegal.

¶10

He further submitted that if impugned order dated 7.1.2025 passed by the court concerned has not been set aside then applicant being informant of the case will suffer with irreparable loss and therefore, instant application filed by the applicant should be allowed and impugned order dated 7.1.2025 passed by the trial court should be set aside.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 to 6 opposed the prayer and submitted that

¶12

admittedly alleged documents which till date could not be proved are public documents and therefore, there is no need of their formal proof and under section 294 Cr.P.C., the same may be proved if genuineness of those documents are not challanged by the defence and till date defence has not challanged the genuineness of those documents and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 7.1.2025 and therefore, instant application is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶14

From the record it reflects that applicant is the informant of the case and at the fag end of the trial she moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial court to summon some witnesses for the purpose to prove the certain public documents but her application moved under section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the trial court.

¶15

From perusal of the impugned order dated 7.1.2025 it reflects that while rejecting the application of the applicant trial court observed that all the alleged documents are public documents and therefore, there is no need for their formal proof. Considering the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C. it cannot be said that observation made by the court concerned while rejecting the application of applicant moved under section 311 Cr.P.C. is illegal and therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 7.1.2025.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant application moved by the applicant is devoid of merit and is hereby, stands dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 8.7.2025

¶18

Ankita

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vandana Dubey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Dubey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Irshad Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit vs State of U.P.

Billo Alias Neeraj vs State of U.P.

Upendra Kumar Alias Sonu Pandit vs State of U.P.

Bhagchandra Alias Pradhan Rajpoot vs State of U.P.

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Alias Sanjeev Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another