Salim vs State of U.P. and Another

The instant criminal revision has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 29.10.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Muzaffarnagar in Session Trial No. 1478 of 2012 (State Vs. Shahnazar) relating to Case crime No. 247 of 2011, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffarnagar. By the said order, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C for summoning witnesses of inquest has been rejected by the learned trial court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has wrongly been rejected by the learned trial court. He has further submitted that the application was filed for summoning the witnesses of inquest report. He also admitted that all the prosecution evidence has been completed and the prosecution has closed its evidence. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is already recorded. The session trial is at the final stage of of arguments. The session trial is arising out of case crime No. 247 of 2011, under Section 302 IPC.

¶11

From the record, it appears that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the complainant of the case-Salim. In the instant case, two session trial bearing Session Trial No. 1478 of 2012 and 1479 of 2012, under section 302 IPC and 25 of Arms Act respectively are pending and are at the final stage of argument. The witnesses, who are

¶12

CRLR No. 841 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

sought to be summoned on the application under section 311 Cr.P.C by the complainant are only witnesses of inquest report and they are only formal witnesses and they are not witnesses of fact.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has relied on law laid down by Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior in Shambhu alias Shimbhu Lodhi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 45036 of 2022. This is a judgment passed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for bail. The question of substantive evidence and final appreciation of evidence is not done at the stage of application for bail. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied that the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held in the said judgment as under:-

¶16

"Before considering the prayer of the counsel for the applicant, this Court would like to observe that the role of the Court is not merely a mute spectator. Its duty is to seek truth. The Court should be alert during criminal trial. An offence is against the society and the Court cannot sit idol and cannot act merely at the pleasure of the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the Sessions Trial is to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor but the Court must be vigilant enough to issue instructions to the Public Prosecutor in case if it is found that the Public Prosecutor is not acting in accordance with law.

¶17

Eyewitnesses are the ears and eyes of the Court. Nowadays it is being observed that the examination of eyewitnesses are being delayed for certain reasons. The delay in examination of eyewitness is not in the interest of criminal justice dispensation system. This Court was unable to understand as to why the Public Prosecutor adopted the method of withholding eyewitnesses and why he gave preference to those witnesses whose evidence can at the most be said to be corroborative in nature."

¶18

The law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the said judgment is only having persuasive value of this Court and it is not final binding value on this Court. The matter in dispute in the present criminal revision is not related to eye witnesses. The witnesses of fact are already completed and even statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C are already recorded. The witnesses of inquest report are only formal witnesses and they are not witnesses of fact. The prosecution has completed all his evidence and the session trial is pending since 2012.

¶19

CRLR No. 841 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

Learned trial court has passed a speaking and reasoned order that the complainant of the case is Salim and Salim has filed the FIR. During investigation, it was found that to save his son, Salim has filed fabricated written complaint. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the I.O. has filed charge sheet. The session trial was commenced in the year 2012. After 13 years, the entire evidence of the prosecution has been completed. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is already recorded. It is always discretion of the Prosecution Officer to submit witnesses before the court. He could not force to produce any witnesses before the trial court.

¶22

Learned trial court has specifically held that the entire prosecution evidence have been completed and it has been closed by the prosecution. It appears that the said application has been filed to cause delay in decision of the said session trial.

¶23

In view thereof, there is neither any perversity, nor illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 29.10.2025. The criminal revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

The present criminal revision is , accordingly , dismissed.

¶25

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶26

February 19, 2026 sfa/

¶27

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

Salim v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim 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

Deoraj Singh and 4 Others vs Moradabad Syntax Limited through Managing Director Arun Kumar Swaroop and 3 Others

Dori and Others Vs State

Raj Pal Singh Vs Doongar Singh and Others

Ayush Sharma Alias Anshu Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Brijlal Prajapati @ Anshu vs State of U.P Nd Another

Kashmir Nagar and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another