Manoj vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16396

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39833 of 2024 Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Nitiyanjan Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Sharma, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today, is taken on record.

¶8

Applicant-Manoj, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-

¶9

"It is, therefore Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and set-aside the impugned order dated passed by the Learned Court 19.10.2024 of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hathras, in Special S.T. No.126 of 2024 (State Vs. Manoj), arising out of Case Crime No.730 of 2023, u/s 376D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and u/s 3(2) (v) of S.C./S.T. Act, related to Police Station Sikandrarao, District Hathras, by which the Learned Trial Court has rejected the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. of the applicant for re-examination of P.W.-1 and further directed to the Learned Trial Court to permit the applicant for re-examination of P.W.-1 in the interest of justice.

¶10

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Special S.T. No.126 of 2024 (State Vs. Manoj), arising out of Case Crime No.730 of 2023, u/s 376D, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and u/s 3 (2) (v) of S.C./S.T. Act, related to Police Station Sikandrarao, District Hathras, pending before the Learned Court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hathras, during pendency of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before the Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶11

And/or pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶12

Record shows that during pendency of aforementioned Sessions Trial applicant filed an application dated 06.08.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that PW-1 Renu be recalled as certain questions could not be put to her during her cross-examination. This application filed by accused-applicant before Court below has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 19.10.2024.

¶13

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that from perusal of the application dated 06.08.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-applicant before Court below, the questions proposed to be put to the accused have not been mentioned in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. nor the relevancy of the said questions has been detailed. He, therefore, submits that in the absence of above, the veracity of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., or the bona fide of the accused applicant in filing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be judged in the light of parameters laid down by the Apex Court in in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2013) 14 SCC 461 . As such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused applicant. Consequently, the present application is liable to be rejected.

¶14

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

¶16

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

¶17

It is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Imtiyaz

¶19

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kasim vs State of U.P. and Another

Arman vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anju Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Yamin vs State of U.P.

Naimuddin and Another vs State of Up and Another

Smt Ekta Chauhan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others