Dismissed

Rahid v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2025CRLR/1075/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a POCSO case challenged the trial court's rejection of his Section 311 CrPC application to re-summon PW-1 and PW-2. The High Court held the trial court had exhaustively considered the belated application lacking specified questions and dismissed the revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rahid vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35529

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1075 of 2025 Revisionist :- Rahid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶6

The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Court No.1, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No.201 of 2023 (State vs. Rahid) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had been rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that there is necessity that PW-1 and PW-2 may be summoned by the trial court so that the revisionist may ask relevant questions from them. It has further been argued that if PW-1 and PW-2 are not summoned and the revisionist is not granted opportunity to examine them again, the revisionist would suffer irreparable loss.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the trial court has exhaustively considered the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and has recorded a finding that the testimony of PW-1 was recorded on 2.11.2023 and the testimony of PW-2 was recorded on 20.11.2023 but the revisionist had filed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. after passage of more than a year's time. It has further been argued that the revisionist, while filing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., has not pointed out as to what questions are to be asked from the witnesses and what is the relevance of those questions therefore, the trial court, after recording detailed findings, had rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has argued that the purpose of filing application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not to delay the proceedings of the trial and to frustrate the entire prosecution.

¶10

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the testimony of PW-1 was recorded on 2.11.2023 and the testimony of PW-2 was recorded on 20.11.2023. The revisionist had filed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning PW-1 and PW-2 after lapse more than a year's time. The revisionist, in his application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., has also not pointed out as to what questions are to be asked from the witnesses and what is the relevance of those questions.

¶11

This Court finds that the trial court had exhaustively considered the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and had recorded findings in the impugned order dated 12.12.2024, in the following terms:-

¶12

" पततवललककअवललकनसकसपषहहककपततवललममपल.डबलल. 1 कतबयतनकदनतनक-02-112023 कलतथतपल. डबलल. 2 पलकडततकतबयतनकदनतनक-20-11-2023 कलअनककतहलचचकत हह।बचतवपकककओरसकदलननहलसतकलगणसकजजरहभलककगयलहह।ककनतचअब पतथर/अकभयचकइसआधतरपरपतथरनतपत 22 ख. पसतचतकररहतहहककसतकलगणसककचछ महतवपलणरपशनपलछनकसकरहगयकहह, ककनतचपतथरनतपतममनतलउनपशननकतकलईकववरण कदयतगयतहहऔरनककनसकमहतवपलणरतथयपलछनकसकरहगयतहह, कतकलईउलकखककयतगयत हह।

¶13

सतकलपल.डबलल. 2 सवयनपलकडततहहजलपतपचवररयबतजलकतहह, जलबहहतछलटलबतजलकत / पलकडततसतकलहलनककककतरणउसकबतर-बतरबचलतयतजतनतउकचतनहहहलगत।जहसतककधतरत33(5) द.प.सन. ममपतवधतकनतककयतगयतहहकक-

¶14

"(5) कवशकरनयतयतलययहसचकनशशचतकरकगतककबतलककलनयतयतलयममपरलकणककजलए बतरबतरनहहबचलतयतजतए।"

¶15

इसपकतरककसलबतलकगवतहसकजजरहपलणरहलजतनकककपशचतततकबनतककसलकतरणवआधतर ककबतर-बतरबचलतयतजतनतउकचतपतलतनहहहलततहह।पतथरनतपतममउनतथयन/पशननकतभल कलईकववरणनहहकदयतगयतहह, जलनयतयकनणरयनककजलएपलछकजतनकआवशयकहन।अतत पतथर/अकभयचककतधतरत-311 द.प.स. कक अनतगरतसतकलगणररककलककयकजतनककत पतथरनतपतसवलकतरककयकजतनककतउकचतआधतरपतलतनहहहलततहह।

¶16

इसपकतरउपरलकतथयएवनपररशसथकतयनममअकभयचकककओरसकपसतचतपतथरनतपत 22 ख. सवलकतरककयकजतनकयलगयनहहहह।"

¶17

In view of the aforesaid categorical consideration made by the learned trial court and the findings recorded in the impugned order dated 12.12.2024, this Court is of the view that there is neither any illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.12.2024.

¶18

Accordingly, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Salim

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahid v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rahid v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chand vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarita Devi vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lko. and Others

Sakuntala vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest and 5 Others

Tribhuvan Prasad Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others