Amir and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4684

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36346 of 2024

Applicant :- Amir And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants-Amir and Manjoor Ali challenging the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by Court below, whereby the application dated 15.07.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-applicants before Court below has been rejected.

¶9

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. invited the attention of Court to the application dated 15.07.2024. With reference to above, he submits that question no.-1 sought to be put to the first informant-opposite party-2 is wholly misconceived inasmuch as, the prosecutrix in her deposition before Court below has categorically stated that incident giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred when she had gone out of her home to throw garbage. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that the question desired to be put to PW-2 have not been mentioned in the application, therefore, the relevance of the said questions has not been stated in the application. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by applicants before Court below was wholly misconceived. Furthermore, the trial is at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2 concluded on 05.11.2022 and 24.11.2022 respectively, whereas the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 15.07.2024 and that to when the trial is at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that no illegality has been committed by Court below in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by applicant before Court below. As such, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that Section 311 Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision, which enabled the Court to unearth the truth at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, by reason of above, there can be no limitation for filing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. However, the Apex Court has gone to the extent that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must disclose the questions proposed to be put to the witness and further the relevance of the same when the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-applicant before Court below is examined in the light of above, this Court finds that the question sought to be put to PW-1 is wholly misconceived and inasmuch as, it is against the deposition of the prosecutrix before Court below itself inasmuch as, the prosecutrix in her deposition before Court below has clearly and categorically stated that the incident giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred when she had gone out of her home to throw garbage. As such, the question sought to be put to PW-1 is wholly misconceived. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. does not mention the questions proposed to be put to PW-2, therefore, the relevance of the same has also not been mentioned in the application.

¶11

In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned. The reasonings/findings returned by Court below in the order impugned cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. It is well settled that if the findings could not be dislodged, the conclusion cannot be altered. In view of above, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain the present application.

¶12

As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

It is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Vinay

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amir and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Similar cases

Riyaz Hussain Alias Raju vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Anuradha Pandey Alias Chandana vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Anash vs State of Upand Another

Arif and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another