Dismissed¶15

Mamta Devi v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2026CRLR/1062/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Abdul Shahid, J.) decided Criminal Revision No. 1062 of 2026, Mamta Devi v. State Of Up And 2 Others, on 26.02.2026, dismissing a revision against the trial court's rejection of a Section 311 Cr.P.C. application to recall the complainant/P.W.-1. The Court noted the sessions trial was pending since 2017, that recording of P.W.-1's statement consumed about four years (22.11.2021 to 13.10.2025) with cross-examination concluding on 13.10.2025, held the trial court's order detailed, speaking and well-reasoned, found no illegality or irregularity, and observed that no litigant can claim unlimited time to recall a witness again and again.

What did the court decide?

Neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order; the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. ¶15

Mamta Devi Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1062 of 2026

¶3

Mamta Devi

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of Up And 2 Others			.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Someshwar Pandey	Pandey,	Vinod	Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall and further examination of the complainant/P.W.-1. The said application was rejected by the learned trial court. It is contended that such rejection would cause serious prejudice to the revisionist and adversely affect his right to a fair trial.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the aforesaid sessions trial has been pending since 2017. The statement of P.W.-1 was recorded on 22.11.2021 and 05.04.2022. Thereafter, the cross-examination was concluded on 13.10.2025. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed at a highly belated stage with a view to delay the proceedings; therefore, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned trial court has passed a detailed, speaking, and well-reasoned order. It has specifically recorded that the examination-in-chief of P.W.-1 was concluded on 22.11.2021 and 05.04.2022. Thereafter, the accused persons took more than three years to conclude the cross-examination, which was ultimately completed on 13.10.2025. Thus, approximately four years were consumed in recording the statement of the complainant/P.W.-1 from 22.11.2021 to 13.10.2025.

¶11

Sufficient opportunity had been afforded to the revisionist to cross-

¶12

CRLR No. 1062 of 2026

¶13

¶14

examine and lead evidence. No litigant can claim unlimited time to recall a witness again and again for further deposition.

¶15

6. In view thereof, neither there is any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

¶16

February 26, 2026 M. Tarik

¶17

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mamta Devi v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Devi v. State of Up and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Veer Narayan Rathaur Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ghanshyam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Riyaz and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramsewak and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Riyaz and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Veer Narayan Rathaur vs State of U.P. and 7 Others