Dismissed¶22

Smt Imarana v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2025CRLR/1367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Criminal Revision No. 1367 of 2024, decided 14 October 2025 by Harvir Singh, J. Rejection of Section 311 Cr.P.C. application seeking cross-examination of PW 2 upheld; distinction between cross-examination and re-examination after a witness's testimony is complete; late-stage application at final-arguments stage after defence evidence and Section 313 statements; inordinate delay; Sessions Trial No. 1275 of 2011, Fast Track Court, Meerut; IPC sections 376, 511, 323, 394, 392; trial court directed to conclude without unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

None to the revisionist; revision dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to hear the matter and pass judgement within a reasonable period without unnecessary adjournments. ¶22

Smt Imarana vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the revisionist; revision dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to hear the matter and pass judgement within a reasonable period without unnecessary adjournments.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether any ground exists for interference with the order dated 23.2.2024 rejecting the revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for cross-examination of PW 2.

¶22

Court's answer

Once the testimony of a witness is complete, the accused persons may seek only re-examination of the witness on the basis of some valid and cogent reasons, but not as a matter of routine.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

No reasonable ground or reasons were assigned in the application for cross-examination of PW 2, which at the most could have been one for re-examination; it was dismissed on merits as well as taking into consideration the inordinate delay and the fact that it was not moved at an appropriate stage.

¶21

Key takeaways

No ground for interference with the impugned order dated 23.2.2024 is found; the criminal revision is dismissed.ratio¶22
Direction to the trial court to hear the matter and pass judgement in accordance with law within a reasonable period without permitting any unnecessary adjournment to either side.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision against the order dated 23.2.2024 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Meerut (Sessions Trial No. 1275 of 2011, under sections 376, 511, 323, 394 and 392 IPC) rejecting the revisionist's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for cross-examination of PW 2 Shahjahan, whose examination-in-chief (18.9.2014) and cross-examination (2.2.2016) were already complete. Held: once a witness's testimony is complete, the accused may seek only re-examination on valid and cogent reasons, not as a matter of routine; the application, moved after about eight years at the final-argument stage (matter listed 14.2.2024; application moved 20.02.2024) after completion of defence evidence and Section 313 CrPC statements, assigned no reasonable grounds and was rightly dismissed on merits, for inordinate delay and at an inappropriate stage. Revision dismissed; trial court directed to pass judgement within a reasonable period without unnecessary adjournments.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1367 of 2024

Smt Imarana

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Op Pa
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Ram Chandra Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Syed Shahnawaz Shah

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Court No. - 90

¶9

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 as well as learned AGA.

¶11

The instant criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 23.2.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 1275 of 2011, under sections 376, 511, 323, 394 and 392 IPC, by which application moved by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for cross examination of a particular witness PW 2, namely, Shahjahan, W/o Shamshad, has been rejected.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted, that the examination-inchief of PW 2, Shahjahan was recorded on 18.9.2014 and cross-examination was completed on 2.2.2016. However in the meantime, some quarrel took place between in-laws of informant and brother-in-law of PW 2 Shajahan, who is a lady and on the basis of the same ground, PW 2 was put to crossexamination. No other ground has been pressed in the present revision.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has submitted that, it is a matter of fact and record that the examination-in-chief of PW 2 Shahjahan was recorded on 18.9.2014 and the cross-examination was completed on 2.2.2016.

¶14

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 further submitted that, thereafter the testimonies of PW 3 and PW 4 and other witnesses was completed and thereafter the statements of all the accused under Section 313 CrPC were also recorded and finally the matter came up for argument on 23.2.2024.

¶15

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 also submitted that though the testimony of PW 2, including examination-in-chief and cross-examination

¶16

CRLR No. 1367 of 2024

¶17

¶18

was complete and no application for cross-examination, can be moved at the instance of the informant, assuming but not admitting, application at the most could have been moved for re-examination of the witnesses.

¶19

Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 further submitted that, after completion of the testimony of PW 2, the present application under section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved after about eight years and that too, at the stage, when the matter came up for final arguments, as the accused also produced two defence witnesses and the testimony of two defence witnesses was also completed. It is further submitted that filing of the said application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was nothing, but to delay the trial and to delay the passing of the final judgement in the matter.

¶20

Having regard to the rival contentions and the fact that once the testimony of a witness is complete, the accused persons may have opportunity to seek re-examination of a witness on the basis of some valid and cogent reasons, but not as a matter of routine. In the present case, the said application has been moved after completion of the entire evidence, including that of recording of the defence evidence and recording statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and even the matter was listed for final arguments on 14.2.2024 and the said application was moved on 20.02.2024, but the matter is unnecessarily prolonged for not being heard finally.

¶21

Under the circumstances, no reasonable ground or reasons have been assigned or taken in the said application moved for cross-examination of PW 2 though the same, at the most, could have been re-examined. The said application has been dismissed on merits as well as taking into consideration the inordinate delay and not at an appropriate stage.

¶22

Hence, no ground for interference with the impugned order dated 23.2.2024 is found in the present revision and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶23

It is needless to say, that the trial court shall hear the matter and pass the judgement in accordance with law within a reasonable period without permitting any unnecessary adjournment to either side.

¶24

October 14, 2025 HR

¶25

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Imarana v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Imarana v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Ashraf vs State of Up and Another

Alok @ Alok Yadav and 3 Ohthers vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Alim and Another vs State of Up and Another

Praveen Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another